IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ginixx/v33y2007i4p423-439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Interstate Trust/Distrust in Triadic Relations

Author

Listed:
  • Chae-Han Kim

Abstract

Emotion or affect is important to understanding the current international interactions. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationships among interstate affects in triads. The hypotheses of structural balance, symmetry, subjectivity and objectivity are tested here. Nations are more likely to trust a target nation when the target trusts them, when their friend trusts the target, when they trust other nations in general, and when other nations in general trust the target. Their attitudes towards the target are not influenced by the fact that their enemy trusts or distrusts the target. The structural balance gives way to some dyads of imbalance. Rather, nations are unlikely to feel friendly towards an enemy of their enemy's. More than 80% of bilateral affects are correctly predicted with the other affect relations only. Some implications on the spread of anti-Americanism and on the role of mediator between two adversaries are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Chae-Han Kim, 2007. "Explaining Interstate Trust/Distrust in Triadic Relations," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 423-439, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ginixx:v:33:y:2007:i:4:p:423-439
    DOI: 10.1080/03050620701681932
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03050620701681932
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03050620701681932?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chae-Han Kim, 2005. "Reciprocity in Asymmetry: When Does Reciprocity Work?," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Chae-Han Kim, 1991. "Third-Party Participation in Wars," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(4), pages 659-677, December.
    3. Jan F. Triska & David D. Finley, 1965. "Soviet - American relations: a multiple symmetry model," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 9(1), pages 37-53, March.
    4. Harold Guetzkow, 1957. "Isolation and collaboration: a partial theory of inter-nation relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 1(1), pages 48-68, March.
    5. Frank Harary, 1961. "A structural analysis of the situation in the Middle East in 1956," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 5(2), pages 167-178, June.
    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. Xiaolong Zheng & Daniel Zeng & Fei-Yue Wang, 2015. "Social balance in signed networks," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1077-1095, October.

    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. Yasemin Akbaba & Patrick James & Zeynep Taydas, 2006. "One-Sided Crises in World Politics: A Study of Oxymoron, Violence and Outcomes," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 229-260, September.
    2. Xiaolong Zheng & Daniel Zeng & Fei-Yue Wang, 2015. "Social balance in signed networks," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1077-1095, October.
    3. William Dixon, 1988. "The discrete sequential analysis of dynamic international behavior," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 239-254, September.
    4. Daniel Druckman & Jennifer Martin & Susan Allen Nan & Dimostenis Yagcioglu, 1999. "Dimensions of International Negotiation: A Test of Iklé's Typology," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 89-108, March.
    5. Henry S. Farber & Joanne Gowa, 1995. "Common Interests or Common Polities? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace," NBER Working Papers 5005, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Hiller, Timo, 2017. "Friends and enemies: a model of signed network formation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), September.

    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:taf:ginixx:v:33:y:2007:i:4:p:423-439. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GINI20 .

    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.