AggestamL (2006) Role theory and European foreign policy. In: ElgströmOSmithM (eds) The European Union’s Roles in International Politics: Concepts and Analysis. London: Routledge, pp.11–29.
2.
AlonsGC (2007) Predicting a state’s foreign policy: State references between domestic and international constraints. Foreign Policy Analysis3(3): 211–232.
3.
BarnettM (1993) Institutions, roles, and disorder: The case of the Arab states system. International Studies Quarterly37(3): 271–296.
4.
BaumMAPotterPBK (2015) War and Democratic Constraint: How the Public Influences Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BeasleyRKaarboJ (2018) Casting for a sovereign role: Socialising an aspirant state in the Scottish independence referendum. European Journal of International Relations24(1): 8–32.
6.
BeasleyRKKaarboJ (2014) Explaining extremity in the foreign policies of parliamentary democracies. International Studies Quarterly58(4): 729–740.
7.
BenešVHarnischS (2015) Role theory in symbolic interactionism: Czech Republic, Germany and the EU. Cooperation and Conflict50(1): 146–165.
8.
BreuningM (1997) Culture, history, role: Belgian and Dutch axioms and foreign assistance policy. In: HudsonVM (ed.) Culture and Foreign Policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 99–123.
9.
BreuningM (2011) Role theory research in international relations: State of the art and blind spots. In: HarnischSFrankCMaullHW (eds) Role Theory in International Relations: Approaches and Analyses. London: Routledge, pp.16–35.
10.
BreuningM (2018) Role Theory in Foreign Policy. In: ThiesCG (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 2. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp 584–99.
11.
BrummerK (2016) Fiasco prime ministers: Leaders’ beliefs and personality traits as possible causes for policy fiascos. Journal of European Public Policy23(5): 702–717.
12.
BrummerKThiesCG (2014) The contested selection of national role conceptions. Foreign Policy Analysis11(3): 273–293.
13.
Bueno de MesquitaBSmithASiversonRM (2004) The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14.
BymanDLPollackKM (2001) Let us now praise great men: Bringing statesman back in. International Security25(4): 107–146.
15.
CantirCKaarboJ (eds) (2016) Domestic Role Contestation, Foreign Policy, and International Relations. New York: Routledge.
16.
ChafetzGAbramsonHGrillotS (1996) Role theory and foreign policy: Belarussian and Ukrainian compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Political Psychology17(4): 727–757.
17.
ClareJ (2010) Ideological fractionalization and the international conflict behavior of parliamentary democracies. International Studies Quarterly54: 965–987.
18.
ÇuhadarEKaarboJKesginBet al. (2017) Examining interactions between agents and structures: Turkey’s 1991 and 2003 Iraqi war decisions. Journal of International Relations and Development20(1): 29–54.
19.
DebsAGoemansHE (2010) Regime type, the fate of leaders, and war. American Political Science Review104: 430–445.
20.
DolanTMJr (2016) Go big or go home? Positive emotions and responses to wartime success. International Studies Quarterly60(2): 230–242.
21.
DoyleM (2008) Liberalism and foreign policy. In: SmithSHadfieldADunneT (eds) Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.54–77.
22.
DysonSB (2009) The Blair Identity: Leadership and Foreign Policy. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
23.
ElmanMF (2000) Unpacking democracy: Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and theories of democratic peace. Security Studies9: 91–126.
24.
FeldmanOValentyL (eds) (2001) Profiling Political Leaders: Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality and Behavior. Westport, CT: Praeger.
25.
FengH (2005) The operational code of Mao Zedong: Defensive or offensive realist?Security Studies14(4): 637–662.
26.
FosterDMKellerJW (2014) Leaders’ cognitive complexity, distrust, and the diversionary use of force. Foreign Policy Analysis10(3): 205–223.
27.
FoyleDC (1999) Counting the Public in: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
28.
FoyleDC (2011) Public opinion, foreign policy and the media: Toward an integrative theory. In: JacobsLRShapiroRY (eds) Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.658–674.
29.
GeorgeAL (1969) The ‘operational code’: A neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision making. International Studies Quarterly13(2): 190–222.
30.
GeorgeALGeorgeJL (1964) Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House. New York: Dover Publications.
31.
GreensteinFI (1992) Can personality and politics be studied systematically?Political Psychology13(1): 105–128.
32.
GrossmanM (2005) Role theory and foreign policy change: The transformation of Russian foreign policy in the 1990s. International Politics42(3): 334–351.
33.
Hafner-BurtonEMHaggardSLakeDAet al. (2017) The behavioral revolution and international relations. International Organization71(Suppl. 1): S1–S31.
34.
HaganJD (1993) Political Opposition and Foreign Policy in Comparative Perspective. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
35.
HaganJD (1994) Domestic political systems and war proneness. Mershon International Studies Review38(Suppl. 2): 183–207.
36.
HaganJD (2001) Does decision making matter? Systemic assumptions vs. historical reality in international relations theory. International Studies Review3: 5–46.
37.
HarnischSBersickSGottwaldJ-C (eds) (2016) China’s International Roles. London: Routledge.
38.
HeffingtonC (2018) Do hawks and doves deliver? The words and deeds of foreign policy in democracies. Foreign Policy Analysis14(1): 64–85.
39.
HermannMG (1980) Explaining foreign policy behavior using the personal characteristics of political leaders. International Studies Quarterly24(1): 7–46.
40.
HermannMG (1993) Leaders and foreign policy decision-making. In: CaldwellDMcKeownTJ (eds) Diplomacy, Force, and Leadership. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.77–94.
41.
HermannMG (2015) Political psychology. In: RhodesRAWHartP (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 117–131.
42.
HermannMGHaganJD (1998) International decision making: Leadership matters. Foreign Policy110: 124–136.
43.
HillC (2013) The National Interest in Question: Foreign Policy in Multicultural Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
HolstiKJ (1970) National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly14(3): 233–309.
45.
HolstiO (1970) The ‘operational code’ approach to the study of political leaders: John Foster Dulles’ philosophical and instrumental beliefs. Canadian Journal of Political Science3(1): 123–157.
46.
HolstiO (2011) American Public Opinion on the Iraq War. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
47.
HorowitzMCStamAC (2014) How prior military experience influences the future militarized behavior of leaders. International Organization68(3): 527–559.
48.
HudsonV (2005) Foreign policy analysis: Actor-specific theory and the ground of international relations. Foreign Policy Analysis1(1): 1–30.
49.
IkenberryGJ (2001) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
IkenberryGJ (2018) Reflections on After Victory. British Journal of Politics and International Relations. Epub ahead of print 10 August. DOI: 10.1177/1369148118791402.
51.
IkléFC (2005) Every War Must End, 2nd rev. edn. New York: Columbia University Press.
52.
JervisR (1976) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
JervisR (2017) Leaders, perception, and policy. Newsletter – International History of Politics Section of the American Political Science Association3(1): 4–5.
54.
JolyJDandoyR (2016) Beyond the water’s edge: How political parties influence foreign policy formulation in Belgium. Foreign Policy Analysis. Epub ahead of print 31 May. DOI: 10.1093/fpa/orw049.
55.
KaarboJ (1997) Prime minister leadership styles in foreign policy decision-making: A framework for research. Political Psychology18: 553–581.
56.
KaarboJ (2015) A foreign policy analysis perspective on the domestic politics turn in IR. International Studies Review17(2): 189–216.
57.
KaarboJ (2017) World leaders’ personalities and foreign policies. Newsletter – International History of Politics Section of the American Political Science Association3(1): 6–8.
58.
KaarboJ (2018) Prime minister leadership style and the role of parliament in security policy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations20(1): 35–51.
59.
KaarboJBeasleyR (2008) Taking it to the extreme: The effect of coalition cabinets on foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis4: 67–81.
60.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
61.
KhongYF (1992) Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62.
KrepsS (2010) Elite consensus as a determinant of alliance cohesion: Why public opinion hardly matters for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy Analysis6: 191–215.
63.
KubálkováV (2001) Introduction. In: KubálkováV (ed.) Foreign Policy in a Constructed World. New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp.3–11.
64.
LaiBSlaterD (2006) Institutions of the offensive: Domestic sources of dispute initiation in authoritarian regimes, 1950–1992. American Journal of Political Science50: 113–126.
65.
LantisJS (2008) Life and Death of International Treaties: Double-edged Diplomacy and the Politics of Ratification in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66.
LarsonDW (1985) Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
Le PrestrePG (ed.) (1997) Role Quests in the Post-cold War Era: Foreign Policies in Transition. Montreal, QC, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
68.
LevittSDDubnerSJ (2005) Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: William Morrow and Company.
69.
LevyJS (1997) Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly41(1): 87–112.
70.
McCourtDM (2012) The roles states play: A Meadian interactionist approach. Journal of International Relations and Development15(3): 370–392.
71.
McDermottR (1998) Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
72.
MaliciA (2005) Discord and collaboration between allies: Managing external threats and internal cohesion in Franco-British relations during the 9/11 era. Journal of Conflict Resolution49(1): 90–119.
73.
MaliciAMaliciJ (2005) The operational codes of Fidel Castro and Kim-Il Sung: The last cold warriors?Political Psychology26(3): 387–412.
74.
MaliciAWalkerSG (2017) Role Theory and Role Conflict in U.S.-Iran Relations: Enemies of Our Own Making. New York: Routledge.
75.
ManowPSchäferAZornH (2008) Europe’s party-political centre of gravity, 1957–2003. Journal of European Public Policy15(1): 20–39.
76.
MansfieldEDMilnerHVPevehouseJC (2007) Vetoing co-operation: The impact of veto players on preferential trading arrangements. British Journal of Political Science37(3): 403–432.
77.
MansfieldEDMilnerHVPevehouseJC (2008) Democracy, veto players and the depth of regional integration. World Economy31(1): 1569–1593.
78.
MaozZRussettB (1993) Normative and structural causes of democratic peace. American Political Science Review87: 624–638.
79.
MarchL (2011) Is nationalism rising in Russian foreign policy? The case of Georgia. Demokratizatsiya: Journal of Post-soviet Democratization19(3): 187–208.
80.
MarksGWilsonCJ (2000) The past in the present: A cleavage theory of party response to European integration. British Journal of Political Science30(3): 433–459.
81.
MaullHW ([1990] 1991) Germany and Japan: The new civilian powers. Foreign Affairs69: 91–106.
82.
MearsheimerJJWaltSM (2007) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
83.
MelloPAPetersD (2018) Parliaments and security policy: Involvement, politicization, and influence. British Journal of Politics and International Relations20(1): 3–18.
84.
MercerJ (2013) Emotion and strategy in the Korean War. International Organization67(2): 221–252.
85.
MilnerH (1987) Resisting the protectionist temptation: Industry and the making of trade policy in France and the United States during the 1970s. International Organization41: 639–666.
86.
NoëlAThérienJ-P (2008) Left and Right in Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
87.
OktayS (2014) Constraining or enabling? The effects of government composition on international commitments. Journal of European Public Policy21(6): 860–884.
88.
OppermannKBrummerK (2018) Veto player approaches in foreign policy analysis. In: ThiesCG (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.807–824.
89.
Özkeçeci-TanerB (2009) The Role of Ideas in Coalition Government Foreign Policymaking: The Case of Turkey between 1991 and 2002. Dordrecht: Republic of Letters Publishing.
90.
PalmerGLondonTRReganPM (2004) What’s stopping you? The sources of political constraints on international conflict behavior in parliamentary democracies. International Interactions30: 1–24.
91.
PetersDWagnerW (2011) Between military efficiency and democratic legitimacy: Mapping parliamentary war powers in contemporary democracies, 1989–2004. Parliamentary Affairs64(2): 175–192.
92.
PostJM (2014) Dreams of glory: Narcissism and politics. Psychoanalytic Inquiry34(5): 475–485.
93.
PrestonT (2001) The President and His Inner Circle: Leadership Style in Foreign Policy Making. New York: Columbia University Press.
94.
RathbunBC (2004) Partisan Interventions: European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
95.
RaunioTWagnerW (2017) Towards parliamentarization of foreign and security policy?West European Politics40(1): 1–19.
96.
RenshonJ (2008) Stability and change in belief systems: The operational code of George W. Bush. Journal of Conflict Resolution52(6): 820–849.
97.
Risse-KappenT (1999) Public opinion, domestic structure, and foreign policy in liberal democracies. World Politics43: 479–512.
98.
RosenauJN (1966) Pre-theories and theories and foreign policy. In: FarrellBR (ed.) Approaches to Comparative and International Politics. New York: The Free Press, pp. 27–92.
99.
RubenzerT (2008) Ethnic minority interest group attributes and U.S. foreign policy influence: A qualitative comparative analysis. Foreign Policy Analysis4(2): 169–186.
100.
SaidemanSMAuerswaldDP (2012) Comparing caveats: Understanding the sources of national restrictions upon NATO’s Mission in Afghanistan. International Studies Quarterly56: 67–84.
101.
SaundersE (2011) Leaders at War: How Presidents Shape Military Interventions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
102.
SchaferMCrichlowS (2010) Groupthink vs. High-Quality Decision Making in International Relations. New York: Columbia University Press.
103.
SchaferMWalkerSG (eds) (2006) Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
104.
SchultzKA (2005) The politics of risking peace: Do hawks or doves deliver the olive branch?International Organization59: 1–38.
105.
ShannonVPKellerJW (2007) Leadership style and international norm violation: The case of the Iraq war. Foreign Policy Analysis3(1): 79–104.
106.
ShapiroRJacobsL (2000) Who leads and who follows? U.S. presidents, public opinion, and foreign policy. In: NacosBShapiroRIserniaP (eds) Decisionmaking in a Glass House: Mass Media, Public Opinion, and American and European Foreign Policy in the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp.223–245.
107.
SkidmoreD (2005) Understanding the unilateralist turn in U.S. foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis2: 207–228.
108.
SnyderGHDiesingP (1977) Conflict among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
109.
SnyderRCBruckHWSapinBM (1954) Decision-making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics. Foreign Policy Analysis Project Series No. 3. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
110.
SproutHSproutM (1956) Man-Milieu Relationship Hypotheses in the Context of International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
111.
StanleyEA (2009) Paths to Peace: Domestic Coalition Shifts, War Termination and the Korean War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
112.
SteinJG (2017) The micro-foundations of international relations theory: Psychology and behavioral economics. International Organization71(S1): S249–S263.
113.
StengelFABaumannR (2018) Non-state actors and foreign policy. In: ThiesCG (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.266–286.
114.
SylvanDVossJ (1998) Problem Representation and Political Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press.
115.
ThiesCG (2003) Sense and sensibility in the study of state socialization: A reply to Kai Alderson. Review of International Studies29(4): 543–550.
116.
ThiesCG (2010) State socialization and structural realism. Security Studies19(4): 689–717.
117.
ThiesCG (2013) The United States, Israel, and the Search for International Order: Socializing States. New York: Routledge.
118.
ThiesCGBreuningM (2012) Integrating foreign policy analysis and international relations through role theory. Foreign Policy Analysis8(1): 1–4.
119.
Van EschFSwinkelsM (2015) How Europe’s political leaders made sense of the euro crisis: The influence of pressure and personality. West European Politics38(6): 1203–1225.
120.
VasquezJA (1993) The War Puzzle. New York: Cambridge University Press.
121.
VertzbergerY (1990) The World in Their Minds. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
122.
VillalobosJDSirinCV (2012) Agenda setting from the oval office. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(1): 21–41.
123.
WagnerWHerranz-SurrallesAKaarboJet al. (2018) Party politics at the water’s edge: Contestation of military operations in Europe. European Political Science Review. Epub ahead of print 6 July. DOI:10.1017/S1755773918000097.
124.
WalkerSG (1977) The interface between beliefs and behavior: Henry Kissinger’s operational code and the Vietnam War. Journal of Conflict Resolution21(1): 129–168.
125.
WalkerSG (1987) Role Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
126.
WalkerSG (2013) Role Theory and the Cognitive Architecture of British Appeasement Decisions. New York: Routledge.
127.
WalkerSGSchaferMYoungMD (1999) Presidential operational codes and foreign policy conflicts in the post-Cold War world. Journal of Conflict Resolution43(5): 610–625.
128.
WeeksJLP (2012) Strongmen and straw men: Authoritarian regimes and the initiation of international conflict. American Political Science Review106: 326–347.
129.
WeeksJLPCrunkiltonC (2018) Domestic constraints on foreign policy in authoritarian systems. In: ThiesCG (ed.) The Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.416–431.
130.
WehnerLE (2016) Inter-role conflict, role strain and role play in Chile’s relationship with Brazil. Bulletin of Latin American Research35(1): 64–77.
131.
WehnerLEThiesCG (2014) Role theory, narratives, and interpretation: The domestic contestation of roles. International Studies Review16(3): 411–436.
132.
WeissJC (2013) Authoritarian signaling, mass audiences, and nationalist protest in China. International Organization67(1): 1–35.
133.
WishNB (1980) Foreign policy makers and national role conceptions. International Studies Quarterly24(4): 532–554.
134.
Yarhi-MiloK (2014) Knowing the Adversary: Leaders, Intelligence, and Assessment of Intentions in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
135.
ZhaoS (2013) Foreign policy implications of Chinese nationalism revisited: The strident turn. Journal of Contemporary China22: 535–553.
136.
ZivG (2013) Simple vs. complex learning revisited: Israeli prime ministers and the question of a Palestinian state. Foreign Policy Analysis9(2): 203–222.