Why language matters: Shaping public risk tolerance during deterrence crises

Reference list

• Adler, E. (2009). Complex deterrence in the asymmetric-warfare era. In T. V. Paul, P. M. Morgan, & J. J. Wirtz (Eds.), Complex deterrence: Strategy in the global age (pp. 85–108). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barberis, N. C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baum, M. A., & Potter, P. B. K. (2008). The relationships between mass media, public opinion, and foreign policy: Toward a theoretical synthesis. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 39–65. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060406.214132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berejikian, J. D. (2002). A cognitive theory of deterrence. Journal of Peace Research, 39(2), 165–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berinsky, A. J. (2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpr057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boettcher, I. W. A. (2004). The prospects for prospect theory: An empirical evaluation of international relations applications of framing and loss aversion. Political Psychology, 25(3), 331–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00375.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, D. J., & Valentino, B. A. (2011). A war of one’s own: Understanding the gender gap in support for war. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 270–286. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfr005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, R., Dekker, T., Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (2010). Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46(1), 93–109. doi: 10.1007/s10640-009-9337-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, L. J., & Dacey, R. (2006). Sequential analysis of deterrence games with a declining status quo. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 23(2), 181–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandler, J., Paolacci, G., Peer, E., Mueller, P., & Ratliff, K. A. (2015). Using nonnaive participants can reduce effect sizes. Psychological Science, 26(7), 1131–1139. doi: 10.1177/0956797615585115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4), 1–9. doi: 10.1177/2053168015622072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, T. W. (2009). The endurance of extended deterrence: Continuity, change, and complexity in theory and tolicy. In T. V. Paul, P. M. Morgan, & J. J. Wirtz (Eds.), Complex deterrence: Strategy in the global age (pp. 277–303). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Holt, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2009). The neurobiology of reference-dependent value computation. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(12), 3833–3842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fearon, J. D. (1994). Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 577–592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. S. (2014). Signaling alliance commitments: Hand-tying and sunk costs in extended nuclear deterrence. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 919–935. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gartner, S. S. (2008). Ties to the dead: Connections to Iraq War and 9/11 casualties and disapproval of the president. American Sociological Review, 73(4), 690–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelpi, C., Feaver, P. D., & Reifler, J. (2009). Paying the human costs of war: American public opinion and casualties in military conflicts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hetherington, M. J., & Nelson, M. (2003). Anatomy of a rally effect: George W. Bush and the war on terrorism. Political Science and Politics, 36(1), 37–42. doi: 10.1017/S1049096503001665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horowitz, M. C. (2016). Public opinion and the politics of the killer robots debate. Research & Politics, 3(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1177/2053168015627183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyde, S. D. (2015). Experiments in international relations: Lab, survey, and field. Annual Review of Political Science, 18(1), 403–424. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Communication Research, 20(3), 365–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, L. R., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2000). Politicians don’t pander: Political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jervis, R. (1989). The meaning of the nuclear revolution: Statecraft and the prospect of armageddon. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jervis, R. (2009). Deterrence, rogue states, and the US policy. In T. V. Paul, P. M. Morgan, & J. J. Wirtz (Eds.), Complex deterrence: Strategy in the global age (pp. 133–157). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johns, R. (2009). Tracing foreign policy decisions: A study of citizens’ use of heuristics. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 11(4), 574–592. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2009.00388.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johns, R., & Davies, G. A. (2019). Civilian casualties and public support for military action: Experimental evidence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(1), 251–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, H. (1960). On thermonuclear war. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246(1), 160–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R. (2010, September). Living with a nuclear Iran. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/living-with-a-nuclear-iran/308193/
   Google Scholar
• Kertzer, J. D., & Zeitzoff, T. (2017). A bottom-up theory of public opinion about foreign policy. American Journal of Political Science, 61(3), 543–558. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12314
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kissinger, H. (1958). Nuclear weapons and foreign policy. New York: Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Kludt, T. (2014, January 31). Even republicans now view the Iraq war as a failure. Livewire. Retrieved from https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-republicans-iraq-war-failure
   Google Scholar
• Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. Mccubbins, & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason; cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 153–182). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, J. A. (2014). Limited war and the advent of nuclear weapons. In J. A. Larsen, & K. M. Kartchner (Eds.), On limited nuclear war in the 21st century (pp. 3–20). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971. doi: 10.2307/2669334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi, A. S., & Whyte, G. (1997). A cross-cultural exploration of the reference dependence of crucial group decisions under risk: Japan’s 1941 decision for war. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(6), 792–813. doi: 10.1177%2F0022002797041006004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, J. S. (1992). An introduction to prospect theory. Political Psychology, 13(2), 171–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, J. S. (1996). Loss aversion, framing, and bargaining: The implications of prospect theory for international conflict. International Political Science Review, 17(2), 179–195. doi: 10.1177%2F019251296017002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, R., Huan, T.-C., Xu, Y., & Nam, I. (2011). Extending prospect theory cross-culturally by examining switching behavior in consumer and business-to-business contexts. Journal of Business Research, 64(8), 871–878. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, R. (1998). Risk-taking in international politics: Prospect theory in American foreign policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Smirnov, O. (2008). On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 335–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, P. M. (2003). Deterrence now. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Page, S. (2014, August 28). Poll: Amid foreign crises, more Americans support U.S. action. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/28/usa-today-pew-poll-us-role-in-the-world/14623319/
   Google Scholar
• Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, T. V. (2009). Complex deterrence: An introduction. In Complex deterrence: Strategy in the global age (pp. 1–30). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, T. V., Morgan, P. M., & Wirtz, J. J. (Eds.). (2009). Complex deterrence: Strategy in the global age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, R. (1989). Nuclear deterrence and the strategy of limited retaliation. American Political Science Review, 83(2), 503–519. doi: 10.2307/1962402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Press, D. G., Sagan, S. D., & Valentino, B. A. (2013). Atomic aversion: Experimental evidence on taboos, traditions, and the non-use of nuclear weapons. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 188–206. doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736. doi: 10.2307/1962487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and influence. New Haven: Yale University press.
   Google Scholar
• Schelling, T. C. (2014). Foreword. In K. M. Kartchner, & J. A. Larsen (Eds.), On limited nuclear war in the 21st century (pp. xi–xiii). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 491–517. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, J. G. (2009). Rational deterrence against ‘irrational’ adversaries? In T. V. Paul, P. M. Morgan, & J. J. Wirtz (Eds.), Complex deterrence: Strategy in the global age (pp. 58–84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Svyantek, D. J., & DeShon, R. P. (1991). The illusion of certainty: A catastrophe model of decision framing. Current Psychology, 10(3), 199–209. doi: 10.1007/BF02686775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomz, M. (2007). Domestic audience costs in international relations: An experimental approach. International Organization, 61(4), 821–840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomz, M., & Weeks, J. L. (2010, September). An experimental investigation of the democratic peace. In Annual meeting of the American political science association, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Trepel, C., Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2005). Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk. Cognitive Brain Research, 23(1), 34–50. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.016
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061. doi: 10.2307/2937956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Clausewitz, C. (1976). On war. (M. Howard & P. Paret, Ed. and Trans.). Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X. T. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(2), 145–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiest, S. L., Raymond, L., & Clawson, R. A. (2015). Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Global Environmental Change, 31, 187–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zagare, F. C. (1990). Rationality and deterrence. World Politics, 42(2), 238–260. doi: 10.2307/2010465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar