International Relations (IR) scholar recognize Wendtian constructivism to be a major step forward because of its emphasis on ideational variables in analyzing international relations. However, the authors of this paper argue that Wendt’s characterization of shared values, ideas, and identities is underspecified. We suggest that “the 2014 Virginia decision” is an obvious case in which it loses its explanatory power as Americans in Virginia chose to support the Korean cause despite the fact that Japan rather than Korea is closer to the United States in terms of shared values, ideas, and identities. We believe that the problem derives from Wendt’s “one-size-fits-all” categorization of his conceptual variable. We suggest that, in order to rectify the lack of specificity inherent to constructivism, a distinction between different levels of the ideational variables is necessary. Utilizing this insight, we attempt to identify the contexts under which the “superordinate” values, ideas, or identities split from the “general” ones.