The prospects for prospect theory: An empirical evaluation of international relations applications of framing and loss aversion

Political Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 331-362

  Boettcher III, William A ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Framing; Group polarization; International relations; Loss aversion; Prospect theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 2942737179     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00375.x     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Bennett, A., & George, A. L. (1997, October). Process tracing in case study research. Paper presented at the MacArthur Foundation Workshop on Case Study Methods, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.
2. Berejikian, J. (1992). Revolutionary collective action and the agent-structure problem. American Political Science Review, 86, 647-657.
3. Berejikian, J. (1997). The gains debate: Framing state choice. American Political Science Review, 91, 789-805.
4. Boettcher, W. A. (1995). Context, methods, numbers, and words: Prospect theory in international relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39, 561-583.
5. Boettcher, W. A. (1997). Prudence or peril: Presidential risk behavior in foreign policy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
6. Bueno de Mesquita, B., McDermott, R., & Cope, E. (2001). The expected prospect for peace in Northern Ireland. International Interactions, 27, 129-167.
7. Clark, R. D. (1971). Group-induced shift toward risk: A critical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 251-270.
8. DeRouen, K. R., Jr. (1995). The indirect link: Politics, the economy, and the use of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39, 671-695.
9. Downs, G. W., & Rocke, D. M. (1994). Conflict, agency, and gambling for resurrection: The principal-agent problem goes to war. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 362-380.
10. Druckman, J. N. (2001a). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 91-101.
11. Druckman, J. N. (2001b). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17, 62-82.
12. Druckman, J. N. (2001c). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
13. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 355-373.
14. Farnham, B. (1992). Roosevelt and the Munich crisis: Insights from prospect theory. Political Psychology, 13, 205-235.
15. Fischhoff, B. (1983). Predicting frames. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 103-116.
16. Fraser, C., Gouge, C., & Billig, M. (1971). Risky shifts, cautious shifts, and group polarization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 7-30.
17. Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wu, W. (1999). Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 79-109.
18. Huth, P., Bennett, D. S., & Gelpi, C. (1992). System uncertainty, risk propensity, and international conflict among the great powers. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36, 478-517.
19. Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141-1151.
20. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Jervis, R. (1992). Political implications of loss aversion. Political Psychology, 13, 187-204.
22. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
23. Kameda, T., & Davis, J. H. (1990). The function of the reference point in individual and group risk decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 55-76.
24. Kanner, M. D. (2002, March). Framing and the role of the second actor. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, New Orleans.
25. Kowert, P. A., & Hermann, M. G. (1997). Who takes risks: Daring and caution in foreign policy making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 611-637.
26. Krosnick, J. A., & Brannon, L. A. (1993). The media and the foundations of presidential support: George Bush and the Persian Gulf conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 167-183.
27. Kühberger, A. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 230-240.
28. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55.
29. Lamm, H. (1988). A review of our research on group polarization: Eleven experiments on the effects of group discussion on risk acceptance, probability estimation, and negotiation positions. Psychological Reports, 62, 807-813.
30. Levi, A. S., & Whyte, G. (1997). A cross-cultural explanation of the reference dependence of crucial group decisions under risk: Japan's 1941 decision for war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 792-813.
31. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.
32. Levy, J. S. (1992a). An introduction to prospect theory. Political Psychology, 13, 171-186.
33. Levy, J. S. (1992b). Prospect theory and international relations: Theoretical applications and analytical problems. Political Psychology, 13, 283-330.
34. Levy, J. S. (1997a). Prospect theory and the cognitive-rational debate. In N. Geva & A. Mintz (Eds.), Decisionmaking on war and peace: The cognitive-rational debate (pp. 33-50). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
35. Levy, J. S. (1997b). Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 87-112.
36. Levy, J. S. (1998). Loss aversion, framing, and bargaining: The implications of prospect theory for international conflict. In F. P. Harvey & B. D. Mor (Eds.), Conflict in world politics: Advances in the study of crisis, war, and peace (pp. 96-115). New York: St. Martin's.
37. Lopes, L. L., & Oden, G. C. (1999). The role of aspiration level in risky choice: A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43, 286-313.
38. Mandel, D. R. (2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 56-76.
39. Maoz, Z. (1990). Framing the national interest: The manipulation of foreign policy decisions in group settings. World Politics, 43, 77-110.
40. Marfleet, B. G. (1997, February). Taking risks for peace or war: Crisis behavior and decision-making unit structures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Toronto.
41. McDermott, R. (1992). Prospect theory in international relations: The Iranian hostage rescue mission. Political Psychology, 13, 237-263.
42. McDermott, R. (1998). Risk-taking in international politics: Prospect theory in American foreign policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
43. McDermott, R., & Kugler, J. (2001). Comparing rational choice and prospect theory analyses: The US decision to launch operation "Desert Storm," January 1991. Journal of Strategic Studies, 24, 49-85.
44. McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S., & Siegel, J. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917-930.
45. McInerney, A. (1992). Prospect theory and Soviet policy towards Syria, 1966-1967. Political Psychology, 13, 265-282.
46. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295-309.
47. Mintz, A., & Geva, N. (1998). A prospect-based analysis of war termination. In F. P. Harvey & B. D. Mor (Eds.), Conflict in world politics: Advances in the study of crisis, war, and peace (pp. 288-305). New York: St. Martin's.
48. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61, 1040-1067.
49. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
50. O'Neill, B. (2001). Risk aversion in international relations theory. International Studies Quarterly, 45, 617-640.
51. Paese, P. W., Bieser, M., & Tubbs, M. E. (1993). Framing effects and choice shifts in group decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 149-165.
52. Pauly, L. W. (1993). The political foundations of multilateral economic surveillance. In J. G. Stein & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Choosing to cooperate: How states avoid loss (pp. 93-127). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
53. Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82, 719-736.
54. Richards, R., Morgan, T. C., Wilson, R. K., Schwebach, V. L., & Young, G. D. (1993). Good times, bad times, and the diversionary use of force: A tale of some not-so-free agents. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37, 504-535.
55. Richardson, L. (1993). Avoiding and incurring losses: Decision-making in the Suez Crisis. In J. G. Stein & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Choosing to cooperate: How states avoid loss (pp. 170-201). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
56. Taliaferro, J. W. (1994, March). Analogical reasoning and prospect theory: Hypotheses on framing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC.
57. Taliaferro, J. W. (1998). Quagmires in the periphery: Foreign wars and escalating commitment in international conflict. Security Studies, 7, 94-144.
58. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
59. van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & van Dijk, E. (2000). Who takes the lead in risky decision making? Effects of group members' risk preferences and prototypicality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 213-234.
60. Vertzberger, Y. Y. I. (1995). Rethinking and reconceptualizing risk in foreign policy decision-making: A sociocognitive approach. Political Psychology, 16, 347-380.
61. Vertzberger, Y. Y. I. (1997). Collective risk taking: The decision making group. In P. 't Hart, E. K. Stern, & B. Sundelius (Eds.), Beyond groupthink: Political group dynamics and foreign policy-making (pp. 275-304). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
62. Vertzberger, Y. Y. I. (1998). Risk taking and decisionmaking: Foreign military intervention decisions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
63. Welch, D. A. (1993). The politics and psychology of restraint: Israeli decision-making in the Gulf war. In J. G. Stein & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Choosing to cooperate: How states avoid loss (pp. 128-169). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
64. Weyland, K. (1996). Risk taking in Latin American economic restructuring: Lessons from prospect theory. International Studies Quarterly, 40, 185-207.
65. Weyland, K. (1998). The political fate of market reform in Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 42, 645-673.
66. Whyte, G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making: A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 430-455.
67. Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis's groupthink model: The key role of collective efficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 185-209.
68. Whyte, G., & Levi, A. S. (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 Making, 7, 243-260.