Erratum: Vetting the advocacy agenda: Network centrality and the paradox of weapons norms (International Organization (2011) 65:1 (69-102) DOI: 10.1017/S0020818310000329);Vetting the advocacy agenda: Network centrality and the paradox of weapons norms

International Organization

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 69-102

  Carpenter, R Charli ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054910433     PISSN: 00208183     EISSN: 15315088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020818311000373     Document Type: Erratum

References (151)

1. Anderberg, Bengt, Ove Bring, and Myron Wolbarsht. 1992. Blinding Laser Weapons and International Humanitarian Law. Journal ofPeace Research 29 (3):287-97.
2. Anderson, Kenneth. 2008a. Lawfare as Illegal Behavioral Counters to Superior Military Forces, and the Limits ofTechnological Responses to It. Opinio Juris Blog. Available at (http://opiniojuris.org/ ?s=battlefield+robots}. May 22. Accessed 30 October 2010.
3. -. 2008b. "Battlefield Robotics: A Very Brief Introduction" and "The Ethically Ideal Autonomous Battlefield Robot as Ethically Ideal Human Soldier?" Opinio Juris Blog. Available at (http://opiniojuris.org/?s= battlefield+robots). May 21. Accessed 30 October 2010.
4. Arkin, Ronald. 2008. Governing Lethal Behavior. Mobile Robot Laboratory Working Paper. Atlanta, Ga.: Georgia Institute ofTechnology.
5. Barabasi, Albert-Lazslo. 2003. Linked: The New Science ofNetworks. New York: Perseus.
6. Barnett, Michael, and Robert Duvall. 2005. Power and Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blinding Weapons. 1994. Conf. Doc. CCW/Conf J/GE/14.
7. Bob, Clifford. 2005. The Marketing ofRebellion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. -. 2009. Introduction: Fighting for New Rights. In The International Struggle for New Human Right , edited by Clifford Bob, 6. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.
9. -. 2010. Packing Heat. In Who Governs the Globe?, edited by Martha Finnemore, Deborah Avant, and Susan Sell, 183-201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Borenstein, Jason. 2008. The Ethics ofAutonomous Military Robots. Studies in Ethics Law and Technology 2 (1):1-17.
11. Brewington, David, David Davis, and Amanda Murdie. 2009. The Ties That Bind: A Network Analysis ofHuman Rights INGOs. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe ISA, February, New Orleans, La.
12. Burgerman, Susan. 2001 . Moral Victories: How Activists Provoke Multilateral Action. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
13. Burt, Ronald. 1999. The Social Capital ofOpinion Leaders. Annals ofthe American Academy ofPolit-ical and Social Science 566:37-54.
14. Cameron, Maxwell. 1998. Democratization ofForeign Policy. In To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, edited by Maxwell A. Cameron, Robert J. Lawson, and Brian W. Tomlin, 424-47 Toronto: Oxford University Press
15. Cameron, Maxwell, Robert Lawson, and Brian W Tomlin, eds 1998 To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines Toronto: Oxford University Press
16. Carnahan, Burrus M., and Marjorie Robertson. 1996. The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. American Journal ofInternational Law 90 (3):484-90
17. Carpenter, Charli. 2007a. Setting the Advocacy Agenda. International Studies Quarterly 51 (1):99-120.
18. -. 2007b. Studying Issue Adoption in Transnational Advocacy Networks. International Organization 61 (3):643-67
19. -. 2009. Orphaned Again: Children Born ofWartime Rape as a Non-Issue for the Human Rights
20. Network In The International Struggle for New Human Rights, edited by Clifford Bob, 14-29 Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania
21. -. 2010. Governing the Global Agenda: "Gatekeepers" and "Issue Adoption" in Transnational Advocacy Networks In Who Governs the Globe?, edited by Deborah Avant, Martha Finnemore, and Susan Sell, 202-37 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
22. Cooley, Alex, and James Ron 2002 The NGO Scramble International Security 27 (1 ):5-39
23. Cottrell, M Patrick 2009 Legitimacy and Institutional Replacement: The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Mine Ban Treaty International Organization 63 (2): 217-48
24. Dimitrov, Radoslav S., Detlef F. Sprinz, Gerald M. DiGiusto, and Alexander Kelle. 2007. International Non-Regimes: A Research Agenda International Studies Review 9 (2):230-58
25. Doswald-Beck, Louise 1996 New Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons International Review ofthe Red Cross 312:272-99.
26. Fahey, Dan 2004 The Emergence and Decline ofthe Debate over Depleted Uranium Munitions Working Paper, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. Available at (http://doc.danfahey.com/Emergence.Decline.pdf). Accessed 30 October 2010.
27. Fairlie, Ian 2008 The Health Hazards ofDepleted Uranium Disarmament Forum 3 Available at (http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art2756.pdf). Accessed 30 October 2010.
28. Fiddina, Paul. 2008. British Military Using Hellfire Weapons in Afghanistan. Military Suppliers and News. Available at (http://www.armedforces- int.com/news/british-military-using-hellfire-weapons-in-afghanistan html) Accessed 30 October 2010
29. Finnemore, Martha 1996 National Interests in International Society Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press
30. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink 1998 International Norm Dynamics and Political Change International Organization 52 (4):887-918
31. Freeman, Linton. 1979. Centrality in Social Networks. Social Networks 1:215-39.
32. Gendercide Watch. Case Study: Conscription and Impressment. Gendercide Watch. Available at (http://www.gendercide.org/case-conscription.html). Accessed 30 October 2010.
33. Goddard, Stacie 2009 Brokering Change: Networks and Entrepreneurs in International Politics International Theory 1 (2):249-81.
34. Grau, Lester, and Timothy Smith. 2000. A Crushing Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny. Marine Corps Gazette. Available online at (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/fuelair/fuelair.htm). Accessed 30 October 2010
35. Gross, Michael. 2010. Moral Dilemmas ofModern War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Gwozdecky, Mark, and Jill Sinclair. 2001. Landmines and Human Security. In Human Security and the New Diplomacy, edited by Rob McRae and Don Hubert, 28-40. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press
37. Hafner-Burton, Emilie, Miles Kahler, and Alex Montgomery 2009 Network Theory in International Relations. International Organization 63 (3):559-59.
38. Hilgartner, Stephen, and Charles L Bosk 1988 The Rise and Fall ofSocial Problems: A Public Arenas Model American Journal ofSociology 94 (1 ):53-78
39. Hubert, Don. 2000. The Landmine Ban. Occasional Paper #42. Providence, R.I.: Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University
40. -. 2007. Humanitarian Advocacy Campaigns. Available at (http://www.gppac.net/uploads/File/ Programmes/Interaction%20and%20Advocacy/ Chapter-7.pdf). Accessed 30 October 2010. International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC). 1993. Blinding Lasers. Geneva: ICRC, 1994.
41. -. 1994. Gas 1918 . Lasers 1990s? ICRC Campaign Brochure. Geneva: ICRC.
42. -. 2001. Depleted Uranium Munitions: Comments ofthe International Committee ofthe Red Cross, June 30. Available at: (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/ siteeng0.nsf/html/57JQXP). Accessed 30 October 2010
43. Joachim, Jutta 2007 Agenda Setting, the UN, and NGOs: Gender Violence and Reproductive Rights. Washington, D C : Georgetown University
44. Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press
45. Khagram, Sanjeev, James Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds 2002 Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks and Norms. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.
46. Klotz, Audie 1996 Norms and International Relations Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press
47. Lake, David, and Wendy Wong 2005 The Politics ofNetworks: Interests, Power and Human Rights Norms Working Paper La Jolla: University ofCalifornia San Diego
48. Lin, Patrick, George Bekey, and Keith Abney 2008 Autonomous Military Robots: Risk, Ethics and Design San Luis Obispo: California Polytechnic University
49. MacDonald, Avril 2008 Depleted Uranium Weapons: The Next Target for Disarmament? Disarmament Forum 3:17-24
50. Mahoney, James, and Gary Goertz 2004 The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research American Political Science Review 98 (4):653-69 (Pubitemid 40046044)
51. Marks, Paul 2008 Anti-Landmine Campaigners Turn Sights on War Robots New Scientist Available at (http://www newscientist com/article/dn13550- antilandmine-campaigners-turn-sights-on-war-robots html) Accessed 30 October 2010
52. Maslen, Stuart 1998 The Role ofthe International Committee ofthe Red Cross In To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, edited by Maxwell A Cameron, Brian W Tomlin, and Robert J Lawson, 80-98 Toronto: Oxford University Press
53. Matthew, Richard, and Kenneth Rutherford 2003 The Evolutionary Dynamics ofthe Movement to Ban Landmines Alternatives 28 (1 ):29-56 (Pubitemid 36385237)
54. Merry, Sally Engle 2006 Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago: University ofChicago
55. Minkel, J. R. 2008. Robotics Professor Sees Threat in Military Robots . Scientific American, February 28 . Available online at (http://www. scientificamerican. com /article . cfm?id=robotics-prof-sees-threat-in-robots) Accessed 30 October 2010
56. Moreno, Jonathan 2006 Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense. New York: Dana Press
57. Nexon, Dan 2009 The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe Princeton, N J : Princeton University Press
58. Peters, Ann 1995 Blinding Laser Weapons: The Need to Ban a Cruel and Inhumane Weapons. New York: Human Rights Watch
59. -. 1996. Blinding Laser Weapons. Medicine, Conflict and Survival 12:107-13.
60. Price, Richard 1997 The Chemical Weapons Taboo Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press
61. -. 2003. Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics. World Politics 55 (4):579-606
62. Ron, James, Howard Ramos, and Kathleen Rodgers 2005 Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting 1986-2000 International Studies Quarterly 49 (3):557-87 (Pubitemid 41702174)
63. Rosenau, James 1990 Turbulence in World Politics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
64. Rutherford, Kenneth. 2000. The Evolving Arms Control Agenda. World Politics 53:74-114.
65. -. 2009. Lethal Fragments: The Cluster Munitions' Legacy ofDestruction. Paper presented at the ISSS/ISAC Conference, October, Monterey, Calif
66. Sharkey, Noel. 2007. Automated Killers and the Computing Profession. Computer 40 (11): 122-24.
67. Short, Nicola 1999 The Role ofNGOs in the Ottawa Process to Ban Landmines International Negotiation 4 (3):481-500.
68. Singer, Robert. 2009. Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin Press
69. Sparrow, Robert 2007 Killer Robots Journal ofApplied Philosophy 24 (1 ):62-77
70. Spector, Malcom, and John Kitsuse 1977 Constructing Social Problems Menlo Park, Calif : Cummings
71. Turns, David. 2006. Weapons in the ICRC Study on Customary IHL. Journal ofConflict Security and Law 11 (2):201-37.
72. United Nations Environmental Program. 2001. Depleted Uranium in Kosovo: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. Geneva: UN
73. Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust 1994 Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
74. Williams, Jody, and Stephen Goose 1998 The International Campaign to Ban Landmines In To Walk Without Fear: The Global Movement to Ban Landmines, edited by Maxwell A Cameron, Brian W Tomlin, and Robert J Lawson, 20-47 Toronto: Oxford University Press
75. Wong, Wendy 2008 Centralizing Principles: How Amnesty International Shaped Human Rights Politics Through Its Transnational Network Ph D diss , University ofCalifornia San Diego . 139-67
76. Banerjee, Mousumi, Michelle Capozzoli, Laura McSweeney, and Debajyoti Sinha. 1999. Beyond Kappa: A Review ofInterrater Agreement Measures. Canadian Journal ofStatistics 27 (1):3-23.
77. Baum, Matthew A. 2002. The Constituent Foundations ofthe Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon. International Studies Quarterly 46 (2):263-98. (Pubitemid 34593378)
78. -. 2004. How Public Opinion Constrains the Use ofForce: The Case ofOperation Restore Hope. Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (2): 187-226.
79. Bayard de Volo, Lorraine. 2001. Mothers ofHeroes and Martyrs: Gender Identity Politics in Nicaragua, 1979-1999. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
80. Brody, Richard A. 1991. Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
81. Burstein, Paul. 2003. The Impact ofPublic Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56 (1):29-40. (Pubitemid 36567651)
82. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. American Political Science Review 101 (4):637-55.
83. Davenport, Christian, and Patrick Ball. 2002. Views to a Kill: Exploring the Implications ofSource Selection in the Case ofGuatemalan State Terror, 1977-1995. Journal ofConflict Resolution 46 (3):427-50. (Pubitemid 36688907)
84. Davis, Darren W., and Brian D. Silver. 2004. Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context ofthe Terrorist Attacks on America. American Journal ofPolitical Science 48 (1 ):28-46. (Pubitemid 38284654)
85. Druckman, James N. 2001a. The Implications ofFraming Effects for Citizen Competence. Political Behavior 23 (3):225-56. (Pubitemid 33386017)
86. -. 2001b. On the Limits ofFraming Effects: Who Can Frame? Journal ofPolitics 63 (4): 1041-66.
87. -. 2004a. Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election. Political Psychology 25 (4):577-94. (Pubitemid 39080679)
88. -. 2004b. Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance ofFraming Effects. American Political Science Review 98 (4):671-86.
89. Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Handbook ofPolitical Science. Vol. 7, Strategies ofInquiry, edited by Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, 79-137. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
90. Entman, Robert M. 2003. Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House's Frame After 9/11. Political Communication 20 (4):415-32. (Pubitemid 37470182)
91. -. 2004. Projections ofPower: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University ofChicago Press
92. Erikson, Robert S 1976 The Relationship Between Public Opinion and State Policy: A New Look Based on Some Forgotten Data. American Journal ofPolitical Science 20 (1):25-36.
93. Finkel, Steven E. 1993. Reexamining the "Minimal Effects" Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns. Journal ofPolitics 55 (1 ):1-21
94. Foyle, Douglas C 1999 Counting the Public in: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
95. Gartner, Scott Sigmund, and Gary M Segura 1998 War, Casualties, and Public Opinion Journal ofConflict Resolution 42 (3):278-300.
96. Gelpi, Christopher 2006 The Costs ofWar: How Many Casualties Will Americans Tolerate? Foreign Affairs 85 (1):139.
97. Gelpi, Christopher, Peter Feaver, and Jason Reifler. 2006. Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq. International Security 30 (3):7-46. (Pubitemid 43550867)
98. Gilliam, Franklin D. Jr., and Shanto Iyengar. 2000. Prime Suspects: The Influence ofLocal Television News on the Viewing Public American Journal ofPolitical Science 44 (3):560-73
99. Groeling, Tim, and Matthew A Baum 2008 Crossing the Water's Edge: Elite Rhetoric, Media Coverage and the Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon Journal ofPolitics 70 (4): 1065-85
100. Guidry, John A., and Mark Q. Sawyer. 2003. Contentious Pluralism: The Public Sphere and Democracy Perspectives on Politics 1 (2): 273-89
101. Howell, William G , and Jon C Pevehouse 2005 Presidents, Congress, and the Use ofForce International Organization 59 (1):209-32.
102. -. 2007. When Congress Stops Wars. Partisan Politics and Presidential Power. Foreign Affairs 86 (5):95-107.
103. Iyengar, Shanto 1987 Television News and Citizens' Explanations ofNational Affairs American Political Science Review 81 (3):815-32.
104. Iyengar, Shanto, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder. 1982. Experimental Demonstrations ofthe "Not-So-Minimal" Political Consequences ofTelevision News Programs. American Political Science Review 76 (4):848-58.
105. Iyengar, Shanto, Donald R. Kinder, Mark D. Peters, and Jon A. Krosnick. 1984. The Evening News and Presidential Evaluations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 46 (4):778-87.
106. Jentleson, Bruce W. 1992. The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use ofMilitary Force. International Studies Quarterly 36 (1):49-73.
107. Jentleson, Bruce W., and Rebecca Britton. 1998. Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use ofMilitary Force. Journal ofConflict Resolution 42 (4):395-417.
108. Jervis, Robert. 2006. Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: The Case ofIraq. Journal ofStrate-gic Studies 29 (1 ):3-52.
109. Jordan, Donald L., and Benjamin I. Page. 1992. Shaping Foreign Policy Opinions: The Role ofTV News. Journal ofConflict Resolution 36 (2):227-41.
110. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis ofDecision Under Risk. Econometrica 47 (2):263-92.
111. -. 1984. Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist 39 (4):341-50.
112. -. 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
113. Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
114. Krosnick, Jon A., and Donald R. Kinder. 1990. Altering the Foundations ofSupport for the President Through Priming. American Political Science Review 84 (2):497-512.
115. Larson, Eric V. 1996. Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role ofCasualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.
116. Lee, Taeku. 2002. Mobilizing Public Opinion: Black Insurgency and Racial Attitudes in the Civil Rights Era. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
117. Levy, Jack S. 1992. Prospect Theory and International Relations: Theoretical Applications and Analytical Problems. Political Psychology 13 (2): 283-310.
118. -. 1996. Loss Aversion, Framing, and Bargaining: The Implications ofProspect Theory for International Conflict. International Political Science Review 17 (2):179-95. (Pubitemid 126309103)
119. -. 1997. Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 41 (1):87-112.
120. Lockerbie, Brad, and Stephen A. Borrelli. 1990. Question Wording and Public Support for Contra Aid, 1983-1986. Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (2): 195-208.
121. McDermott, Rose. 2004. Political Psychology in International Relations. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University ofMichigan Press.
122. Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.
123. -. 2005. The Iraq Syndrome. Foreign Affairs 84 (6):44-54.
124. Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
125. Ornstein, Norman, Andrew Kohut, and Larry McCarthy. 1988. The People, the Press, and Politics: The Times-Mirror Study ofthe American Electorate. New York: Addison-Wesley.
126. Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1983. Effects ofPublic Opinion on Policy. American Political Science Review 77 (1 ):175-90.
127. Page, Benjamin I., Robert Y. Shapiro, and Glenn R. Dempsey. 1987. What Moves Public Opinion? American Political Science Review 81 (1 ):23-44
128. Perla, Hector, Jr. 2005. Revolutionary Deterrence: The Sandinista Response to Reagan's Coercive Policy Against Nicaragua. Lessons Toward a Theory ofAsymmetric Conflict. Ph.D. diss., University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles
129. -. 2008a. Si Nicaragua Vencio, El Salvador Vencera: Central American Agency in the Creation ofthe U.S.-Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement Latin American Research Review 43 (2): 136-58.
130. -. 2008b. Grassroots Mobilization Against US Military Intervention in El Salvador. Socialism and Democracy 22 (3):143-59
131. -. 2009. Heirs ofSandino: The Nicaraguan Revolution and the U.S.-Nicaragua Solidarity Movement. Latin American Perspectives 36 (6):80-100.
132. -. 2010a. Transnational Public Diplomacy: Assessing Salvadoran Revolutionary Efforts to Build U.S. Public Opposition to Reagan's Central American Policy. In The United States and Public Diplomacy: New Directions in Cultural and International History, edited by Kenneth Osgood and Brian Etheridge, 165-91 Boston: Brill
133. -. 2010b. Revolutionary Deterrence: U.S. Coercion and Transnational Resistance by Sandinista Nicaragua Unpublished manuscript
134. Powlick, Philip J., and Andrew Z. Katz. 1998. Defining the American Public Opinion /Foreign Policy Nexus Mershon International Studies Review 42 (1 ):29-61 (Pubitemid 28437395)
135. Quattrone, George A , and Amos Tversky 1988 Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses ofPolitical Choice American Political Science Review 82 (3):719-36
136. Robinson, William I 1996 Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, U.S. Intervention, and Hegemony. New York: Cambridge University Press
137. Russett, Bruce, and Miroslav Nincic 1976 American Opinion on the Use ofMilitary Force Abroad Political Science Quarterly 91 (3):411-31
138. Saunders, Elizabeth N 2009 Transformative Choices: Leaders and the Origins ofIntervention Strategy International Security 34 (2):119-61
139. Shapiro, Robert Y., and Benjamin I. Page. 1988. Foreign Policy and the Rational Public. Journal ofConflict Resolution 32 (2):211-47.
140. Sigelman, Lee, and Pamela Johnston Conover 1981 The Dynamics ofPresidential Support During International Conflict Situations: The Iranian Hostage Crisis. Political Behavior 3 (4):303-18.
141. Sobel, Richard. 2001. The Impact ofPublic Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy Since Vietnam: Constraining the Colossus. New York: Oxford University Press
142. Sorrentino, Richard M , and Neil Vidmar 1974 Impact ofEvents: Short-vs Long-Term Effects ofa Crisis. Public Opinion Quarterly 38 (2):271-79.
143. Stimson, James A 2004 Tides ofConsent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics New York: Cambridge University Press.
144. Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation ofPolitical Beliefs. American Journal ofPolitical Science 50 (3):755-69. (Pubitemid 43823240)
145. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981 . The Framing ofDecisions and the Psychology ofChoice. Science 211 (4481):453-58.
146. U.S. Department ofState. 1981 . Communist Interference in El Salvador: Documents Demonstrating Communist Support ofthe Salvadoran Insurgency. Washington, D.C.: Bureau ofPublic Affairs.
147. Valentino, Nicholas A., Vincent L. Hutchings, and Ismail K. White. 2002. Cues that Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns. American Political Science Review 96 (1 ): 75-90.
148. Viterna, Jocelyn S. 2006. Pulled, Pushed, and Persuaded: Explaining Women's Mobilization into the Salvadoran Guerrilla Army. American Journal ofSociology 112 (1 ): 1-45. (Pubitemid 44449129)
149. Walker, Thomas W. 2003. Nicaragua: Living in the Shadow ofthe Eagle. 4th ed. Boulder, Colo.: West-view Press.
150. Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2003. Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. New York: Cambridge University Press.
151. Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins ofMass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.