Factors that may affect public support or opposition to U.S. military intervention in humanitarian crises around the world are examined to determine the impact of foreign policy frames on individual risk propensity. The source of the foreign policy frames, type of humanitarian crisis, location of the crisis and race/ethnicity/religion of the endangered population, tolerable ratios of U.S. lives saved/lost to foreign citizens saved/lost, and probability of casualty-free success are also investigated.
Aspin, L.1995. Challenges to values-based military intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace.
2.
Berejikian, J.1992.Revolutionary collective action and the agent-structure problem. American Political Science Review86: 647-657.
3.
Berejikian, J.1997. The gains debate: Framing state choice. American Political Science Review91: 789-805.
4.
Boettcher, W. A.1995. Context, methods, numbers, and words: Prospect theory in international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution39: 561-583.
5.
Boettcher, W. A. 1997. Prudence or peril: Presidential risk behavior in foreign policy. Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University.
6.
Brune, L. H.1998. The United States and post-cold war interventions: Bush and Clinton in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia 1992-1998. Claremont, CA: Regina Books.
7.
Dorman, A. M. , and T. G. Otte, eds. 1995. Military intervention: From gunboat diplomacy to humanitarian intervention. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
8.
Druckman, J. N.2001. On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?Journal of Politics63: 1041-1066.
9.
Eichenberg, R. C.2003. Gender differences in public attitudes toward the use of force by the United States, 1990-2003. International Security28: 110-141.
10.
Farnham, B.1992. Roosevelt and the Munich crisis: Insights from prospect theory. Political Psychology13: 205-235.
11.
Fixdal, M. , and D. Smith. 1998. Humanitarian intervention and just war. Mershon International Studies Review42: 283-312.
12.
Garrett, S. A.1999. Doing good and doing well: An examination of humanitarian intervention. Westport, CT: Praeger.
13.
Gaubatz, K. T.1995. Intervention and intransitivity: Public opinion, social choice, and the use of military force abroad. World Politics47: 534-554.
14.
Gause, F. G. , and O. Feldman. 1998. Prospect theory and Iraqi war decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September.
15.
Haass, R. N.1999. Intervention: The use of American military force in the post-coldwar world. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
16.
Huth, P. , D. S. Bennett, and C. Gelpi. 1992. System uncertainty, risk propensity, and international conflict among the great powers. Journal of Conflict Resolution36: 478-517.
17.
Jakobsen, P. V.1996. National interest, humanitarianism or CNN: What triggers UN peace enforcement after the cold war?Journal of Peace Research33: 205-215.
18.
Jakobsen, P. V.2000. Focus on the CNN effect misses the point: The real media impact on conflict management is invisible and indirect. Journal of Peace Research37: 131-143.
19.
Jentleson, B. W. , and R. L. Britton. 1998. Still pretty prudent: Post-cold war American public opinion on the use of military force. Journal of Conflict Resolution42: 395-417.
20.
Jervis, R.1992. Political implications of loss aversion. Political Psychology13: 187-204.
21.
Kahneman, D. , and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47: 263-291.
22.
Kahneman, D. , and A. Tversky. 1982. The psychology of preferences. Scientific American246: 160-173.
23.
Kahneman, D. , and A. Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist39: 341-350.
24.
Kowert, P. A. , and M. G. Hermann. 1997. Who takes risks? Daring and caution in foreign policy making. Journal of Conflict Resolution41: 611-637.
25.
Kühberger, A.1998.The influenceof framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes75: 23-55.
26.
Lepgold, J.1998. NATO’s post-cold war collective action problem. International Security23: 78-106.
27.
Levi, A. S. , and G. Whyte. 1997. A cross-cultural explanation of the reference dependence of crucial group decisions under risk: Japan’s 1941 decision for war. Journal of Conflict Resolution41: 792-813.
28.
Levin, I. P. , S. L. Schneider, and G. J. Gaeth. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76: 149-188.
29.
Levy, J. S.1992a. An introduction to prospect theory. Political Psychology13: 171-186.
30.
Levy, J. S.1992b. Prospect theory and international relations: Theoretical applications and analytical problems. Political Psychology13: 283-330.
31.
Levy, J. S.1997a. Prospect theory and the cognitive-rational debate. In Decision making on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate, edited by N. Geva and A. Mintz, 33-50. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
32.
Levy, J. S.1997b. Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly41: 87-112.
33.
Levy, J. S.1998. Loss aversion, framing, and bargaining: The implications of prospect theory for international conflict. In Conflict in world politics: Advances in the study of crisis, war, and peace, edited by F. P. Harvey and B. D. Mor, 96-115. New York: St. Martin’s.
34.
Livingston, S. , and T. Eachus. 1995. Humanitarian crises and U.S. foreign policy: Somalia and the CNN effect reconsidered. Political Communication12: 413-429.
35.
Mastanduno, M.1993.Framing the Japan problem: The Bush administration and the structural impediments initiative. In Choosing to cooperate: How states avoid loss, edited by J. G. Stein and L. W. Pauly, 35-64. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
McDermott, R.1992. Prospect theory in international relations: The Iranian hostage rescue mission. Political Psychology13: 237-263.
37.
McDermott, R.1998. Risk-taking in international politics: Prospect theory in American foreign policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
McInerney, A.1992. Prospect theory and Soviet policy towards Syria, 1966-1967. Political Psychology13: 265-282.
39.
Mintz, A. , and N. Geva. 1998. A prospect-based analysis of war termination. In Conflict in world politics: Advances in the study of crisis, war, and peace, edited by F. P. Harvey and B. D. Mor, 288-305. New York: St. Martin’s.
40.
Moore, J. M. , ed. 1998. Hard choices: Moral dilemmas in humanitarian intervention. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
41.
Natsios, A. S.1997. U.S. foreign policy and the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Humanitarian relief in complex emergencies. Westport, CT: Praeger.
42.
Neilson, W. S.2003.Probability transformations in the study of behavior toward risk. Synthese135: 171-192.
43.
Nincic, M. , and D. J. Nincic. 2002. Race, gender, and war. Journal of Peace Research39: 547-568.
44.
O’Hanlon, M.1997. Saving lives with force: Military criteria for humanitarian intervention. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
45.
O’Neill, B.2001.Risk aversion in international relations theory. International Studies Quarterly45: 617-640.
46.
Pauly, L. W.1993. The political foundations of multilateral economic surveillance. In Choosing to cooperate: How states avoid loss, edited by J. G. Stein and L. W. Pauly, 93-127. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
47.
Peterson, S. A. , and R. Lawson. 1989. Risky business: Prospect theory and politics. Political Psychology10: 325-339.
48.
Quattrone, G. A. , and A. Tversky. 1988. Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review82: 719-736.
49.
Richardson, L.1993. Avoiding and incurring losses: Decision-making in the Suez crisis. In Choosing to cooperate: How states avoid loss, edited by J. G. Stein and L. W. Pauly, 170-201. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
50.
Robinson, P.1999. The CNN effect: Can the news media drive foreign policy?Review of International Studies25: 301-309.
51.
Robinson, P.2000. The policy-media interaction model: Media power during humanitarian crisis. Journal of Peace Research37: 613-633.
52.
Shafir, E.1992. Prospect theory and political analysis: A psychological perspective. Political Psychology13: 311-322.
53.
Spar, D.1993. Co-developing the FSX fighter: The domestic calculus of international co-operation. In Choosing to cooperate: How states avoid loss, edited by J. G. Stein and L. W. Pauly, 65-92. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
54.
Steele, C. M.1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance of women and African-Americans. American Psychologist52: 613-629.
55.
Tversky, A. , and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211: 453-458.
56.
Tversky, A. , and D. Kahneman. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty5: 297-323.
57.
Van Belle, D. A. , and S. W. Hook.2000.Greasingthe squeaky wheel: News media coverage and US development aid. International Interactions26: 321-346.
58.
Vertzberger, Y. Y. I.1995. Rethinking and reconceptualizing risk in foreign policy decision-making: A sociocognitive approach. Political Psychology16: 347-380.
59.
Vertzberger, Y. Y. I.1998. Risk taking and decision making: Foreign military intervention decisions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
60.
Welch, D. A.1993. The politics and psychology of restraint: Israeli decision-making in the Gulf War. In Choosing to cooperate: How states avoid loss, edited by J. G. Stein and L. W. Pauly, 128-169. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
61.
Weyland, K.1996. Risk taking in Latin American economic restructuring: Lessons from prospect theory. International Studies Quarterly40: 185-207.
62.
Weyland, K.1998. The political fate of market reform in Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe. International Studies Quarterly42: 645-673.
63.
Whyte, G. , and A. S. Levi. 1994. The origins and function of the reference point in risky group decision making: The case of the Cuban missile crisis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making7: 243-260.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
