2024/01/01 by Wilfred M. Chow, Wilfred Chow, Dov H. Levin +1 · 1 voice · 16 citations
Social Sciences · #Criticism #Diplomacy #Electoral Systems and Political Participation #Face (sociological concept) #Foreign policy #Identity (music) #International Relations and Foreign Policy #International relations #Law #Law and economics #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Power (physics) #Public administration #Public opinion #Public relations #Punitive damages #Rhetorical question #Social Media and Politics #Social science #Sociology #State (computer science)
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s002081832400002x
published in International Organization 78(1), 103-133 (University of Cambridge)
openalex publication_date 2024/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/25
Abstract Does whataboutism work in global affairs? When states face international criticism, they often respond with whataboutism: accusing their critics of similar faults. Despite its prevalence in policy discussions, whataboutism remains an understudied influence strategy. This study investigates how states use whataboutism to shape American public opinion across various international issues. We find, using survey experiments, that whataboutism mitigates the negative impacts of criticism by reducing public approval of US positions and backing for punitive actions. Whataboutist critiques referencing similar, recent misdeeds have more power to shape opinions. However, the identity of the whataboutist state does not significantly affect effectiveness. US counter-messaging often fails to diminish the effects of whataboutism. These results show that whataboutism can be a potent rhetorical tool in international relations and that it warrants greater attention from international relations scholars.