The “Commitment Trap” Revisited: Experimental Evidence on Ambiguous Nuclear Threats

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2023-03-10 DOI:10.1017/xps.2023.8

Michal Smetana, M. Vranka, Ondřej Rosendorf

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we provide an empirical test for the theoretical claim that ambiguous nuclear threats create a “commitment trap” for American leaders: when deterrence fails, supposedly they are more likely to order the use of nuclear weapons to avoid domestic audience costs for backing down. We designed an original survey experiment and fielded it to a sample of 1,000 U.S. citizens. We found no evidence of a commitment trap when ambiguous nuclear threats are made. Unlike explicit threats, ambiguous ones did not generate domestic disapproval when the leader backed down; the decision to employ nuclear weapons led to more public backlash for the leader than being caught bluffing; and the threats did not influence public preference for nuclear use across our scenarios. Our findings contribute to the scholarly literature on nuclear crisis bargaining and policy debates over the future of US declaratory policy.

查看原文本刊更多论文

“承诺陷阱”再访:关于暧昧核威胁的实验证据

在这篇论文中，我们为模糊的核威胁为美国领导人制造了一个“承诺陷阱”的理论主张提供了一个实证检验：当威慑失败时，他们更有可能下令使用核武器，以避免国内观众因让步而付出代价。我们设计了一个原始的调查实验，并将其应用于1000名美国公民的样本中。当做出模棱两可的核威胁时，我们没有发现任何承诺陷阱的证据。与明确的威胁不同，当领导人让步时，模棱两可的威胁并没有引起国内的反对；使用核武器的决定导致公众对这位领导人的强烈反对，而不是被抓到虚张声势；而且这些威胁并没有影响公众对我们所有场景中使用核武器的偏好。我们的研究结果为有关核危机谈判的学术文献和关于美国宣示政策未来的政策辩论做出了贡献。

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

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.