Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-qdp55 Total loading time: 0.426 Render date: 2021-12-08T02:57:04.343Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Decision Maker Preferences for International Legal Cooperation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2014

Get access

Abstract

Why do some decision makers prefer big multilateral agreements while others prefer cooperation in small clubs? Does enforcement encourage or deter institutional cooperation? We use experiments drawn from behavioral economics and cognitive psychology—along with a substantive survey focused on international trade—to illustrate how two behavioral traits (patience and strategic reasoning) of individuals who play key roles in negotiating and ratifying an international treaty shape their preferences for how treaties are designed and whether they are ratified. Patient subjects were more likely to prefer treaties with larger numbers of countries (and larger long-term benefits), as were subjects with the skill to anticipate how others will respond over multiple iterations of strategic games. The presence of an enforcement mechanism increased subjects' willingness to ratify treaties; however, strategic reasoning had double the effect of adding enforcement to a trade agreement: more strategic subjects were particularly likely to favor ratifying the agreement. We report these results for a sample of 509 university students and also show how similar patterns are revealed in a unique sample of ninety-two actual US policy elites. Under some conditions certain types of university student convenience samples can be useful for revealing elite-dominated policy preferences—different types of people in the same situation may prefer to approach decision-making tasks and reason through trade-offs in materially different ways.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, Phillip L., and Schneider, Walter. 1985. Individual Differences in Automatic and Controlled Information Processing. In Individual Differences in Cognition. Vol. 2, edited by Dillon, Ronna F., 3566. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Agranov, Marina, Caplin, Andrew, and Tergiman, Chloe. 2013. Naïve Play and the Process of Choice in Guessing Games. Mimeo. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology and the Center for Experimental Social Science.Google Scholar
Agranov, Marina, Potamites, Elizabeth, Schotter, Andrew, and Tergiman, Chloe. 2012. Beliefs and Endogenous Cognitive Levels: An Experimental Study. Games and Economic Behavior 75 (2):449–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, Karen J., and Meunier, Sophie. 2009. The Politics of International Regime Complexity. Perspectives on Politics 7 (1):1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert, and Keohane, Robert. 1985. Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. World Politics 38 (1):226–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, Michèle, Duch, Raymond, and Miller, Luis. 2010. Who Should Be Called to the Lab? A Comprehensive Comparison of Students and Non-Students in Classic Experimental Games. Centre for Experimental Social Sciences Discussion Paper. Oxford, UK: Nuffield College, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2004. Can We Talk? Self-Presentation and the Survey Response. Political Psychology 25 (4):643–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy. 2005. Political Selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (3):4360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Reynal-Querol, Marta. 2011. Do Democracies Select More Educated Leaders? American Political Science Review 105 (3):552–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhui, Rahul, and Camerer, Colin F.. 2011. Measuring Intrapersonal Stability of Strategic Sophistication in Cognitive Hierarchy Modeling. Mimeo. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Boli, John, and Thomas, George M.. 1999. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bonner, Bryan L., and Baumann, Michael R.. 2008. Informational Intra-Group Influence: The Effects of Time Pressure and Group Size. European Journal of Social Psychology 38 (1):4466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch-Domènech, Antoni, Montalvo, Jose G., Nagel, Rosemarie, and Satorra, Albert. 2002. One, Two, (Three), Infinity …: Newspaper and Lab Beauty-Contest Experiments. American Economic Review 92 (5):1687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenton, Tony. 1994. The Greening of Machiavelli: The Evolution of International Environmental Politics. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, Energy and Environmental Programme.Google Scholar
Byman, Daniel L., and Pollack, Kenneth M.. 2001. Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back in. International Security 25 (4):107–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, Colin F., and Hogarth, Robin M.. 1999. The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19 (1–3):742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin, Ho, Teck-Hua, and Chong, Kuan. 2003. Models of Thinking, Learning, and Teaching in Games. American Economic Review 93 (2):192–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin, Ho, Teck-Hua, and Chong, Kuan. 2004. A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games. Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (3):861–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, Andrew H., Daschle, Thomas A., Alden, Edward H., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2011. US Trade and Investment Policy. Independent Task Force Report No. 67. Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
Charness, Gary, and Sutter, Matthias. 2012. Groups Make Better Self-Interested Decisions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (3):157–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Serena, and Chaiken, Shelly. 1999. The Heuristic-Systematic Model in Its Broader Context. In Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, edited by Chaiken, Shelly and Trope, Yaacov, 7396. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Coller, Maribeth, and Williams, Melonie B.. 1999. Eliciting Individual Discount Rates. Experiment Economics 2 (2):107–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, David J., Kagel, John H., Lo, Wei, and Gu, Qing Liang. 1999. Gaming Against Managers in Incentive Systems: Experimental Results with Chinese Students and Chinese Managers. American Economic Review 89 (4):781804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coricelli, Giorgio, and Nagel, Rosemarie. 2009. Neural Correlates of Depth of Strategic Reasoning in Medial Prefrontal Cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (23):9163–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa-Gomes, Miguel A., and Crawford, Vincent P.. 2006. Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study. American Economic Review 96 (5):1737–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Gomes, Miguel A., and Zauner, Klaus G.. 2001. Ultimatum Bargaining Behavior in Israel, Japan, Slovenia, and the United States: A Social Utility Analysis. Games and Economic Behavior 34 (2):238–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Vincent P. 2003. Lying for Strategic Advantage: Rational and Boundedly Rational Misrepresentation of Intentions. American Economic Review 93 (1):133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Vincent P., Costa-Gomes, Miguel A., and Iriberri, Nagore. 2013. Structural Models of Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking: Theory, Evidence, and Applications. Journal of Economic Literature 51 (1):562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, Christopher T., Loewen, Peter J., and Fowler, James H.. 2011. Social Preferences and Political Participation. Journal of Politics 73 (3):845–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Sousa, José, Hallard, Guillaume, and Terracol, Antoine. 2012. Do Non-strategic Players Really Exist? Evidence From Experimental Games Involving Step Reasoning. Mimeo. Paris: Université de Paris Sud and Paris School of Economics.Google Scholar
Donno, Daniela. 2010. Who Is Punished? Regional Intergovernmental Organizations and the Enforcement of Democratic Norms. International Organization 64 (4):593625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, George W., Rocke, David M., and Barsoom, Peter N.. 1996. Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation? International Organization 50 (3):379406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbittar, Alexander, Gomberg, Andrei, and Sour, Laura. 2011. Group Decision-Making and Voting in Ultimatum Bargaining: An Experimental Study. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy 11 (1): Article 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ensley, Michael, Marchi, Scott de, and Munger, Michael. 2007. Candidate Uncertainty, Mental Models, and Complexity: Some Experimental Results. Public Choice 132 (1):231–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Peter B., Jacobson, Harold K., and Putnam, Robert D., eds. 1993. Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fearon, James. 1998. Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation. International Organization 52 (2):269305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, and List, John A.. 2004. The Hidden Costs and Returns of Incentives—Trust and Trustworthiness Among CEOs. Journal of the European Economic Association 2 (5):743–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, Donelson R. 2010. Group Dynamics. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006. Altruism and Turnout. Journal of Politics 68 (3):674–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2006. Patience as a Political Virtue: Delayed Gratification and Turnout. Political Behavior 28 (2):113–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2007. Beyond the Self: Altruism, Social Identity, and Political Participation. Journal of Politics 69 (3):813–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H., and Schreiber, Darren. 2008. Biology, Politics, and the Emerging Science of Human Nature. Science 322 (5903):912–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galasso, Vincenzo, and Nannicini, Tommaso. 2011. Competing on Good Politicians. American Political Science Review 105 (1):7999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup Organization, and Times Mirror Company. 1989. The People, the Press and Politics: Public Opinion About Economic Issues: Viewpoints of the General Public, US Opinion Leaders, and Overseas Investors. Available at <http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/19890301.pdf>. Accessed 14 February 2014..+Accessed+14+February+2014.>Google Scholar
Gartner, Scott S. 2011. On Behalf of a Grateful Nation: Conventionalized Images of Loss and Individual Opinion Change in War. International Studies Quarterly 55 (2):545–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan, Huber, Gregory, Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Ha, Shang E.. 2010. Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships Across Issue Domains and Political Contexts. American Political Science Review 104 (1):111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Michael J. 2006. Is Enforcement Necessary for Effectiveness? A Model of the International Criminal Regime. International Organization 60 (4):935–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Michael J., and Johns, Leslie. 2012. Formal Models of International Institutions. Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1):221–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstein, Fred I. 2004. The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grieco, Joseph M., Gelpi, Christopher, Reifler, Jason, and Feaver, Peter D.. 2011. Let's Get a Second Opinion: International Institutions and American Public Support for War. International Studies Quarterly 55 (2):563–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Hughes, D. Alex, and Victor, David G.. 2013. The Cognitive Revolution and the Political Psychology of Elite Decision Making. Perspectives on Politics 11 (2):368–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Victor, David G., and Lupu, Yonatan. 2012. Political Science Research on International Law: The State of the Field. American Journal of International Law 106 (1):4797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, and Hiscox, Michael J.. 2010. Attitudes Toward Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. American Political Science Review 104 (1):6184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Glenn W., Lau, Morton I., and Williams, Melonie B.. 2002. Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment. American Economic Review 92 (5):1606–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Michael. 1994. Decision at Midnight: Inside the Canada-US Free-Trade Negotiations. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid. 1986. Experimental Evidence on Group Accuracy. In Information Pooling and Group Decision Making: Proceedings of the Second University of California, Irvine, Conference on Political Economy, edited by Grofman, Bernard and Owen, Guillermo, 129–57. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., and McDermott, Rose. 2012. A Neurobiological Approach to Foreign Policy Analysis: Identifying Individual Differences in Political Violence. Foreign Policy Analysis 8 (2):111–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Darren G., Lake, David A., Nielson, Daniel L., and Tierney, Michael J., eds. 2006. Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedinger, Beat, and Götte, Lorenz. 2006. Cooperation in the Cockpit: Evidence of Reciprocity and Trust Among Swiss Air Force Pilots. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Strategy and Business Economics, University of Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Helland, Leif, Loyning, Gjermund, and Monkerud, Lars C.. 2013. Don't You Believe Me? Seasoned Parliamentarians in a Lobbying Experiment. Working Paper. Oslo: Norwegian Business School.Google Scholar
Hills, Carla A. 2005. The Stakes of Doha. Foreign Affairs (Special WTO ed.) 84 (7):2536.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon, and König, Thomas. 2002. In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization 56 (2):447–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1968. Hypotheses on Misperception. World Politics 20 (3):454–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1998. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Dominic D.P. 2004. Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Jerome. 1988. The Meanings of Personality Predicates. American Psychologist 43 (8):614–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahler, Miles. 1992. Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers. International Organization 46 (3):681708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 2005. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Victor, David G.. 2011. The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspective on Politics 9 (1):723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knetsch, Jack L. 1989. The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves. American Economic Review 79 (5):1277–84.Google Scholar
Kugler, Tamar, Kausel, Edgar E., and Kocher, Martin G.. 2012. Are Groups More Rational Than Individuals? A Review of Interactive Decision Making in Groups. CESifo Working Paper Series 3701. Munich, Germany: CESifo Group Munich.Google ScholarPubMed
Lake, David A., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2006. The Logic of Delegation to International Organizations. In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations, edited by Hawkins, Darren G., Lake, David A., Nielson, Daniel L., and Tierney, Michael J., 341–68. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughlin, Patrick R. 2011. Group Problem Solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Coq, Chloé, and Sturluson, Jon Thor. 2012. Does Opponents' Experience Matter? Experimental Evidence from a Quantity Precommitment Game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 84 (1):265–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leventoğlu, Bahar, and Tarar, Ahmer. 2008. Does Private Information Lead to Delay or War in Crisis Bargaining? International Studies Quarterly 52 (3):533–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, John M., and Moreland, Richard L.. 2006. Small Groups: Key Readings. 1st ed. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
List, John A. 2003. Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies? Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1):4171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, John A. and Mason, Charles F.. 2009. Are CEOs Expected Utility Maximizers? Journal of Econometrics 162 (1):114–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Pevehouse, Jon C.. 2008. Democratization and the Varieties of International Organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (2):269–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lisa L. 1995. Heterogeneity, Linkage and Commons Problems. In Local Commons and Global Interdependence, edited by Keohane, Robert O. and Ostrom, Elinor, 7991. London: Sage.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2008. Presidential Leadership, Illness, and Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2011. New Directions for Experimental Work in International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 55 (2):503–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John. 1994. The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security 19 (3):549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, John W., Boli, John, Thomas, George M., and Ramirez, Francisco O.. 1997. World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology 103 (1):144–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, Helen. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mintz, Alex, Redd, Steven B., and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2006. Can We Generalize From Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations? Journal of Conflict Resolution 50 (5):757–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex, Yang, Yi, and McDermott, Rose. 2011. Experimental Approaches to International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 55 (2):493501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, Walter. 1974. Processes in Delay of Gratification. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 7, edited by Berkowitz, Roger, 249–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Halperin, Karen D.. 2008. A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behaviour. British Journal of Political Science 38:335–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., Hibbing, Matthew V., Canache, Damarys, Seligson, Mitchell A., and Anderson, Mary R.. 2010. Personality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior. American Political Science Review 104 (1):85110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myatt, David P., Shin, Hyun Song, and Wallace, Chris. 2002. The Assessment: Games and Coordination. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 18 (4):397417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Rosemarie. 1995. Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study. American Economic Review 85 (5):1313–26.Google Scholar
Neale, Margaret A., and Bazerman, Max H.. 1985. The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 28 (1):3449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neustadt, Richard E. 1960. Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership From Roosevelt to Reagan. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Oye, Kenneth A. 1985. Explaining Cooperation Under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies. World Politics 38 (1):124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, Thomas R., and Wang, Stephanie W.. 2009. On Eliciting Beliefs in Strategic Games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 71 (2):98109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, Charles R. 1996. Rational Individual Behavior in Markets and Social Choice Processes: The Discovered Preference Hypothesis. In The Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior: Proceedings of the IEA Conference Held in Turin, Italy, edited by Arrow, Kenneth, Colombatto, Enrico, Perlman, Mark, and Schmidt, Christian, 220–24. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 1986. American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective. American Political Science Review 80 (1):1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1999. In the Shadow of Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 42 (3):427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Tonya L. and Shapiro, Jacob N.. 2009. Does International Law Affect Willingness to Punish Foreign Human Rights Abusers? Working Paper. Princeton University/Columbia University, Princeton, NJ/New York.Google Scholar
Raustiala, Kal. 2005. Form and Substance in International Agreements. American Journal of International Law 99 (3):581614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Christopher, and Carnevale, Peter J.. 1997. Group Choice in Ultimatum Bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72 (2):256–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Todd. 2004. Global Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Arthur M Jr.. 1965. A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Norbert. 1999. Self-Reports: How the Questions Shape the Answers. American Psychologist 54 (2):93105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shamir, Jacob, and Shikaki, Khalil. 2005. Public Opinion in the Israeli-Palestinian Two-Level Game. Journal of Peace Research 42 (3):311–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, James McCall. 2000. The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts. International Organization 54 (1):137–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, Dale O., and Wilson, Paul W.. 1995. On Players' Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence. Games and Economic Behavior 10 (1):218–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Arthur A. 1982. Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World. International Organization 36 (2):299324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingley, Dustin H. 2011. The Dark Side of the Future: An Experimental Test of Commitment Problems in Bargaining. International Studies Quarterly 55:521–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingley, Dustin H., and Wang, Stephanie W.. 2010. Belief Updating in Sequential Games of Two-Sided Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study of a Crisis Bargaining Model. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5 (3):243–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingley, Dustin H., and Walter, Barbara. 2011a. Can Cheap Talk Deter? An Experimental Analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution 55 (6):9941018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingley, Dustin H., and Walter, Barbara. 2011b. The Effect of Repeated Play on Reputation Building: An Experimental Approach. International Organization 65 (2):343–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael. 2004. Interests, Information, and the Domestic Politics of International Agreements. Working Paper. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael. 2008. Reputation and the Effect of International Law on Preferences and Beliefs. Working Paper. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Trager, Robert F., and Vavreck, Lynn. 2011. The Political Costs of Crisis Bargaining: Presidential Rhetoric and the Role of Party. American Journal of Political Science 55 (3):526–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Trade Representative (USTR). 2008. Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, USTR-Doha Media Roundtable. 17 July 2008. Audio/Transcript: USTR Schwab Doha Media Roundtable. Available at <www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/archives/2008/july>. Accessed June 28 2012..+Accessed+June+28+2012.>Google Scholar
Vecchione, Michele, and Caprara, Gian V.. 2009. Personality Determinants of Political Participation: The Contribution of Traits and Self-Efficacy Beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences 46 (4):487–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2008. The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights. American Political Science Review 102 (4):417–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Stein, Jana. 2005. Do Treaties Constrain or Screen? Selection Bias and Treaty Compliance. American Political Science Review 99 (4):611–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, Eugene J., Campbell, Donald T., Schwartz, Richard D., and Sechrest, Lee. 2000. Unobtrusive Measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob. 2010. Obama's Wars. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Wako, Dolan, Ray J., and Friston, Karl J.. 2008. Game Theory of Mind. PLoS Computational Biology 4 (12):e1000254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshida, Wako, Dziobek, Isabel, Kliemann, Dorit, Heekeren, Hauke R., Friston, Karl J., and Dolan, Ray J.. 2010. Cooperation and Heterogeneity of the Autistic Mind. Journal of Neuroscience 30 (26):8815–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshida, Wako, Seymour, Ben, Friston, Karl J., and Dolan, Raymond J.. 2010. Neural Mechanisms of Belief Inference During Cooperative Games. Journal of Neuroscience 30 (32):10744–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material(File)
File 124 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material(File)
File 2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material(File)
File 3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material(File)
File 2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material

Download Hafner-Burton Supplementary Material(File)
File 3 KB
47
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Decision Maker Preferences for International Legal Cooperation
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Decision Maker Preferences for International Legal Cooperation
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Decision Maker Preferences for International Legal Cooperation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *