IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v66y2022i2p246-271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quick on the Draw: American Negativity Bias and Costly Signals in International Relations

Author

Listed:
  • Seok Joon Kim

Abstract

States signal their intentions to domestic and foreign audiences but are not always believed. Why do people believe some state signals but not others? Using a survey experiment on a representative sample of the US public, this study finds that individuals have a negativity bias when assessing the credibility of state signals. They take other states’ aggressive actions as evidence of deep hostility but are skeptical of the credibility of conciliatory gestures. The experimental result shows that the mobilization of a small proportion of an army is perceived credible enough as an aggressive action, while the removal of even a large proportion is not perceived as conciliatory. The psychological mechanism found here is a strong foundation for theorizing about how individuals process information embedded in state signals and can improve our understanding of signaling.

Suggested Citation

  • Seok Joon Kim, 2022. "Quick on the Draw: American Negativity Bias and Costly Signals in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(2), pages 246-271, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:66:y:2022:i:2:p:246-271
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027211040104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027211040104
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027211040104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kertzer, Joshua D & Renshon, Jonathan & Yarhi-Milo, Keren, 2021. "How Do Observers Assess Resolve?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 308-330, January.
    2. James D. Fearon, 1997. "Signaling Foreign Policy Interests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 68-90, February.
    3. James D. Fearon, 1994. "Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(2), pages 236-269, June.
    4. Merolla, Jennifer L. & Zechmeister, Elizabeth J., 2018. "Threat and Information Acquisition: Evidence from an Eight Country Study," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 167-181, December.
    5. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    6. Rathbun, Brian C. & Kertzer, Joshua D. & Paradis, Mark, 2017. "Homo Diplomaticus: Mixed-Method Evidence of Variation in Strategic Rationality," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(S1), pages 33-60, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yaohui Wang, 2023. "A blessing or a curse? China’s Arctic involvement and its environmental policy to prevent further climatic change and pollution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-19, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clayton L. Thyne, 2006. "Cheap Signals with Costly Consequences," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(6), pages 937-961, December.
    2. Paul K. Huth, 1998. "Major Power Intervention in International Crises, 1918-1988," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 744-770, December.
    3. Jesse C. Johnson & Brett Ashley Leeds & Ahra Wu, 2015. "Capability, Credibility, and Extended General Deterrence," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 309-336, March.
    4. Neil Narang & Rupal N. Mehta, 2019. "The Unforeseen Consequences of Extended Deterrence: Moral Hazard in a Nuclear Client State," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(1), pages 218-250, January.
    5. Brandon K. Yoder & Kyle Haynes, 2021. "Signaling under the Security Dilemma: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(4), pages 672-700, April.
    6. Catherine C. Langlois, 2012. "Power and Deterrence in Alliance Relationships," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 148-169, April.
    7. Todd S. Sechser, 2018. "Reputations and Signaling in Coercive Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(2), pages 318-345, February.
    8. Hee Min Kim & Jun Choi, 2002. "Uncertainty in foreign policy making: A Bayesian game analysis of Korea," Global Economic Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 25-40.
    9. Kiratli, Osman Sabri, 2023. "Policy Objective of Military Intervention and Public Attitudes: A Conjoint Experiment from US and Turkey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue Latest Ar.
    10. Han Dorussen & Kyriaki Nanou, 2006. "European Integration, Intergovernmental Bargaining, and Convergence of Party Programmes," European Union Politics, , vol. 7(2), pages 235-256, June.
    11. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    12. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    13. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    14. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    15. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    16. Alejandro Quiroz Flores, 2011. "Alliances as Contiguity in Spatial Models of Military Expenditures," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(4), pages 402-418, September.
    17. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    18. Yoram Halevy & Guy Mayraz, 2024. "Identifying Rule-Based Rationality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(5), pages 1369-1380, September.
    19. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 15478, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.

    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:sae:jocore:v:66:y:2022:i:2:p:246-271. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.