Abstract
This article examines how states manage foreign policy crises that are triggered by non-state actors. This research argues that crises triggered by non-state actors are particularly prone to informational and commitment problems, as well as audience costs. As a consequence, a state experiencing a non-state-triggered crisis will be more likely to adopt violent crisis management techniques and less likely to seek a negotiated solution. This assertion is tested using data from the International Crisis Behavior project. The findings suggest that these crises are indeed more prone to violent crisis management techniques when compared with crises triggered by other states. The implications of these findings for both our understanding of crisis decision-making and the study of non-state actors in international relations are discussed.