@inbook {136106,
	title = {Negotiating Agreements in International Relations},
	booktitle = {Negotiating Agreement in Politics},
	year = {2013},
	publisher = {American Political Science Association},
	organization = {American Political Science Association},
	author = {Odell, John and Tingley, Dustin}
}
@proceedings {132666,
	title = {The structural topic model and applied social science},
	journal = {Neural Information Processing Society},
	year = {2013},
	author = {Margaret Roberts and Brandon Stewart and Tingley, Dustin and Edoardo Airoldi}
}
@article {73521,
	title = {Physiological Arousal and Political Beliefs},
	journal = {Political Psychology},
	volume = {36},
	number = {5},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {569-585},
	url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12173},
	author = {Jonathan Renshon and Tingley, Dustin and Julia Jooa-Lee}
}
@article {56116,
	title = {Why the Study of International Law Needs Experiments},
	journal = {Columbia Journal of Transnational Law},
	volume = {52},
	number = {1},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {173-238},
	author = {Adam Chilton and Tingley, Dustin}
}
@book {47206,
	title = {The Geopolitics of Foreign Aid},
	year = {2013},
	publisher = {Edward Elgar},
	organization = {Edward Elgar},
	editor = {Helen V. Milner and Tingley, Dustin}
}
@article {47201,
	title = {Dissecting direct and indirect genetic effects on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) susceptibility},
	journal = {Human Genetics},
	volume = {132},
	number = {4},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {431-441},
	author = {Mateusz Siedlinski and Tingley, Dustin and Peter Lipman and Michael H. Cho and Augusto A. Litonjua and David Sparrow and Per Bakke and Amund Gulsvik and David A. Lomas and Wayne Anderson and Xiangyang Kong and Stephen I. Rennard and Terri H. Beaty and John E. Hokanson and James D. Crapo and Edwin Silverman and Christoph Lange}
}
@article {43981,
	title = {Public Opinion and Foreign Aid: A Review Essay},
	journal = {International Interactions},
	volume = {39},
	number = {3},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {389-401},
	author = {Milner, Helen and Tingley, Dustin}
}
@inbook {39109,
	title = {Introduction to the Geopolitics of Foreign Aid},
	booktitle = {Geopolitics of Foreign Aid},
	year = {2013},
	author = {Milner, Helen and Tingley, Dustin H.}
}
@article {34316,
	title = {How to be a peer reviewer: a guide for recent and soon-to-be Ph.D.{\textquoteright}s},
	journal = {PS: Political Science \& Politics},
	volume = {46},
	number = {1},
	year = {2013},
	url = {http://journals.cambridge.org/repo_A88Fl2yh},
	author = {Elizabeth Miller and Jon Pevehouse and Tingley, Dustin and Rogowski, Ron and Rick Wilson}
}
@article {33349,
	title = {Public Finance and Immigration Preferences: A Lost Connection?},
	journal = {Polity},
	volume = {45},
	number = {1},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {4-33},
	author = {Tingley, Dustin}
}
@article {3591,
	title = {The Choice for Multilateralism: Foreign Aid and American Foreign Policy},
	journal = {Review of International Organizations},
	volume = {8},
	number = {3},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {313-341},
	abstract = {Why do states choose multilateralism? We develop an argument focused on the burden-sharing versus control dilemma of principal-agent (PA) models. We also present two alternative theoretical frames that could explain this choice: a normative logic of appropriateness and hegemonic self binding. We examine the political bases of support for sending foreign aid through multilateral versus bilateral channels. First, we clarify the concept of multilateralism. We show that the choices for internationalism and multilateralism are distinct.  Second, we develop hypotheses from each of the three theories and examine how public opinion data allow us to shed light on these different theories about multilateralism. Finally, we provide evidence about the correlates of public support for multilateral engagement. We isolate how two competing rationales{\textemdash}burden sharing and control{\textemdash}dictate some of the politics around the choice between multilateral versus bilateral aid channels. The data support our claim that a principal-agent model can help us to understand the choice for multilateralism. 
},
	author = {Milner, Helen and Tingley, Dustin}
}
@article {3589,
	title = {Experimental Designs for Identifying Causal Mechanisms (with discussions)},
	journal = {Journal of the Royal Statistical Society-Series A},
	volume = {176},
	number = {1},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {5-51},
	abstract = {Experimentation is a powerful methodology that enables scientists to empirically establish causal claims. However, one important criticism is that experiments merely provide a black-box view of causality and fail to identify causal mechanisms. Critics argue that although experiments can identify average causal effects, they cannot explain how such effects come about. If true, this represents a serious limitation of experimentation, especially for social and medical science research whose primary goal is to identify causal mechanisms. In this paper, we consider several different experimental designs and compare their identification power. Some of these designs require the direct manipulation of mechanisms, while others can be used even when only imperfect manipulation is possible. We use recent social science experiments to illustrate the key ideas that underlie each design.},
	url = {http://imai.princeton.edu/research/Design.html},
	author = {Kosuke Imai and Tingley, Dustin and Teppei Yamamoto}
}
