The Many Faces of Credibility: Hawks, Doves, and Nuclear Disarmament

IF 2.2 2区社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Security Studies Pub Date : 2023-05-27 DOI:10.1080/09636412.2023.2224924

Don Casler, David T. Ribar, Keren Yarhi-Milo

{"title":"The Many Faces of Credibility: Hawks, Doves, and Nuclear Disarmament","authors":"Don Casler, David T. Ribar, Keren Yarhi-Milo","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2023.2224924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The conventional wisdom in international relations holds that an actor’s past record of keeping her word determines her cooperative credibility, and that mutual perceptions of credibility are essential in sustaining cooperation. Yet competing reputation-skeptic and psychological perspectives dispute this conventional wisdom, suggesting that assessments of cooperative credibility result from observers’ judgments about the other’s capabilities and interests or observers’ foreign policy orientations. How do observers assess others’ cooperative credibility? We field a nationally representative survey experiment asking 2,953 Americans to evaluate a hypothetical coercer’s commitment to lift sanctions on a would-be proliferator in exchange for the latter dismantling its nascent nuclear program. We vary the coercer’s previous behavior plus several other contextual factors. We find that respondents’ hawkishness interacts with the coercer’s past actions to shape respondents’ credibility assessments and their support for the proliferator accepting the proposal, with substantial implications for theories of misperception and bargaining.","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"32 1","pages":"413 - 445"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2224924","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The conventional wisdom in international relations holds that an actor’s past record of keeping her word determines her cooperative credibility, and that mutual perceptions of credibility are essential in sustaining cooperation. Yet competing reputation-skeptic and psychological perspectives dispute this conventional wisdom, suggesting that assessments of cooperative credibility result from observers’ judgments about the other’s capabilities and interests or observers’ foreign policy orientations. How do observers assess others’ cooperative credibility? We field a nationally representative survey experiment asking 2,953 Americans to evaluate a hypothetical coercer’s commitment to lift sanctions on a would-be proliferator in exchange for the latter dismantling its nascent nuclear program. We vary the coercer’s previous behavior plus several other contextual factors. We find that respondents’ hawkishness interacts with the coercer’s past actions to shape respondents’ credibility assessments and their support for the proliferator accepting the proposal, with substantial implications for theories of misperception and bargaining.

查看原文本刊更多论文

可信度的多面:鹰派、鸽派和核裁军

摘要国际关系中的传统观点认为，一个行动者过去信守诺言的记录决定了她的合作信誉，而对信誉的相互认知对维持合作至关重要。然而，相互竞争的声誉怀疑论者和心理学观点对这一传统观点提出了质疑，认为对合作信誉的评估源于观察者对对方能力和利益的判断，或观察者的外交政策取向。观察者如何评估他人的合作可信度？我们进行了一项具有全国代表性的调查实验，要求2953名美国人评估一个假设的胁迫者解除对潜在扩散者制裁的承诺，以换取后者废除其新生的核计划。我们改变胁迫者先前的行为加上其他一些上下文因素。我们发现，受访者的鹰派态度与胁迫者过去的行为相互作用，从而影响了受访者的可信度评估以及他们对接受提议的扩散者的支持，这对误解和讨价还价的理论具有重大意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.