IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v11y2023i4p921-929_16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When does public diplomacy work? Evidence from China's “wolf warrior” diplomats

Author

Listed:
  • Mattingly, Daniel C.
  • Sundquist, James

Abstract

How does public diplomacy shape global public opinion? In this note, we theorize that positive public diplomacy that emphasizes aid and friendship works, while negative messages that criticize international rivals are ineffective. We conduct an experiment, to our knowledge the first of its kind, that randomly exposes Indian citizens to real Twitter messages from Chinese diplomats. We find that positive messages emphasizing aid and friendship improve perceptions of China, even in times of escalating violent conflict. However, messages from so-called “Wolf Warrior” diplomats that harshly criticize the United States are ineffective and can backfire in times of crisis. We argue public diplomacy can be a useful tool for global powers, but that domestic political pressures have pushed some diplomats, like China's Wolf Warriors, toward nationalist messages that do not appeal to foreign audiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Mattingly, Daniel C. & Sundquist, James, 2023. "When does public diplomacy work? Evidence from China's “wolf warrior” diplomats," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 921-929, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:11:y:2023:i:4:p:921-929_16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847022000413/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:11:y:2023:i:4:p:921-929_16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.