Foresight research equips politicians with robust long-term scenarios to strengthen their capacity for anticipatory policy-making. In light of current ruptures in the international order, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this rationale is likely to gain momentum. Already now, foresight is common practice among various political institutions. In particular, the intelligence-gathering Delphi method enjoys great popularity. Its intuitive logic and limited resource requirements make it a springboard for more complex foresight endeavours. Yet despite this enthusiasm, Delphi’s participant-based methodology lacks critical scrutiny. From a behavioural science standpoint, this is surprising. The human intellect is known to be vulnerable to bias. Building on Hofstede’s theory, this thesis examines if members of collectivist and individualist cultures differ systematically in their decision-making (1983). Survey data related to the situation in Afghanistan is for this purpose collected from Afghan and German experts. However, an evaluation of the empirical results cannot identify evidence of bias. Both groups arrive at somewhat similar assessments, i.e., level of consensus. The use of Delphi within policy development thus seems justified and could encourage more debate on the benefits of foresight within Peace and Conflict Research (PCR).