When Backing Down Is the Right Decision: Partisanship, New Information, and Audience Costs
2012/03/28 by Matthew Levendusky, Matthew S. Levendusky, Michael C. Horowitz · 249 citations
Business, Management and Accounting · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Argument (complex analysis) #Economics #Electoral Systems and Political Participation #Framing (construction) #Law #Law and economics #Media Influence and Politics #Political Influence and Corporate Strategies #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Positive economics #Psychology #Public relations #Social psychology
paper · doi:10.1017/s002238161100154x
published in The Journal of Politics 74(2), 323-338 (University of Chicago Press)
openalex publication_date 2012/03/28 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
Abstract
How do domestic political conditions shape when leaders get punished for backing down in international crises? We explore how three factors—the president’s partisanship, the reaction of other elites, and whether the president justifies his decision on the basis of new information—influence the size of domestic audience costs. While standard theories in American politics suggest that partisanship should exert a large effect over voter behavior, we offer an alternative theory explaining why the president’s unique informational advantage following a crisis will mute partisanship’s effect on audience costs. We argue that the president’s justification for why he backed down, however, will have a large effect on audience costs. Using a series of original survey experiments, we find strong support for our theoretical argument. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for the role of partisanship, framing, and the audience costs literature more broadly.
Citations
Cited by
- Making It Personal: The Role of Leader-Specific Signals in Extended Deterrence
- Tying Hands, Sinking Costs, and Leader Attributes
- Mechanisms of Morality
- A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs
- Audience Costs among the British Public: The Impact of Escalation, Crisis Type, and Prime Ministerial Rhetoric
- Military Alliances and Public Support for War
- Mapping the Boundaries of Elite Cues: How Elites Shape Mass Opinion across International Issues
- Provocation, Public Opinion, and International Disputes: Evidence from China
- Authoritarian Audiences, Rhetoric, and Propaganda in International Crises: Evidence from China
- Manipulating Public Beliefs about Alliance Compliance: A Survey Experiment
- Win-Win Deescalation
- Diplomacy by committee: Assessing resolve and costly signals in group settings
- Defending democracy: investigating the efficacy of elite democratic defence in a competitive information environment
- When is Changing Policy Positions Costly for Politicians? Experimental Evidence
- Delegating Destruction: Coercive Threats and Automated Nuclear Systems
- Does the US Really Embolden its Allies? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Japan
- Historical Analogies and Public Support for Foreign Policy Action
- Institutions over Individuals: The Role of Government Type in Demonstrating Resolve during International Crises
- When and How Do Presidents Terminate Sanctions? The Effect of Domestic Factors on US Sanctions Policy
- Knowledge Cumulation and Survey Experiments
- Scapegoating Your Ally: How Leaders Deflect Audience Costs by Blaming Allies for Not Supporting Them in International Crises
- Can China Back Down? Crisis De-escalation in the Shadow of Popular Opposition
- Mediated Audience Costs: Jordan–Israeli Diplomacy before the 1967 Arab–Israeli War
- Redefining the Debate Over Reputation and Credibility in International Security
- Think Ahead: Cost Discounting and External Validity in Foreign Policy Survey Experiments
- Terrorist Attacks and Trust in Institutions: Micro Evidence From Europe
- Out of the Loop Again: How Dangerous is Weaponizing Automated Nuclear Systems?
- The Suffragist Peace
- Do External Threats Unite or Divide? Security Crises, Rivalries, and Polarization in American Foreign Policy
Related