Abstract
How does international shaming and praising affect domestic support for joining international agreements? Many scholars have examined the role of shaming in leading countries to support international agreements, and a wide literature on social opprobrium suggests that both governments and citizens are sensitive to being named and shamed. Yet far less is known about the dynamics of praise in international relations and how they compare to the dynamics of shame. This article uses a survey experiment to test and compare the effects of praising and shaming on individuals’ support for their government joining an international agreement. Specifically, it tests whether praising or shaming from other countries leads individuals to support their country joining a hypothetical international agreement that would ban the use of explosive weapons. It finds that praising is effective in increasing public support for joining the treaty, while shaming is not. By examining the extent to which praising and shaming can shape public opinion on international security agreements, this article provides new insights regarding how states and NGOs can use these rhetorical tools to build support for new legal norms. For policymakers and activists seeking to promote new norms and agreements, understanding the role of praising and shaming in changing public opinion can help them better direct their resources and improve their strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data generated and analyzed in this study are available on the Review of International Organizations’ webpage.
Notes
By shaming, I refer to public statements that frame the target actor negatively, involving disapproval from the shamer(s). Praising refers to public statements that frame the target actor in a positive sense, involving an affirmation of the target’s behavior from the praiser(s). In this article, I assume that shaming and praising are intentional and aimed at affecting the target’s behavior.
Consequently, the mere presence of positive or negative information in a report—if not public and not seeking to affect the target’s behavior or position—is not sufficient to constitute praising or shaming.
Although the effect is stronger when shaming Sweden’s lack of compliance with human rights treaty commitments than climate change commitments.
This survey was reviewed by and received an exemption from the Cornell University Institutional Review Board and was preregistered with the Open Science Framework before responses were collected.
Responses were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Treatment was randomly assigned and demographic variables were largely balanced, indicating that randomization was successful. However, given that the age variable is slightly unrepresentative of the overall American population, I add weights in the full model to correct for this. See Appendix on the Review of International Organizations’ webpage for additional information regarding demographic variables.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this suggestion.
As the Appendix shows, ordered logistic regression produces extremely similar results, albeit with a slightly larger effect size for praising (ATE coefficient = 0.33).
See Appendix for further information.
In this survey experiment, the authors vary (among other attributes) the extent to which the United States is falling short of its mitigation goals.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
References
Ausderan, J. (2014). How naming and shaming affects human rights perceptions in the shamed country. Journal of Peace Research, 51(1), 81–95.
Becker, J., Kreps, S., Poast, P., & Terman, R. (2023). Transatlantic Shakedown: Presidential Shaming and NATO Burden-Sharing. Journal of Conflict Resolution. OnlineFirst.
Brutger, R., Kertzer, J., Renshon, J., & Weiss, C. (2022). Abstraction in experimental design: Testing the tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press.
Busby, J. (2010). Moral movements and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
Busby, J., & Greenhill, K. (2015). Ain’t that a shame? Hypocrisy, punishment and weak actor influence in international politics. In R. Friman (Ed.), The politics of leverage in international relations: Name, shame, and Sanction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chapman, T. (2011). Securing approval: Domestic politics and multilateral authorization for war. University of Chicago Press.
Chu, J., & Recchia, S. (2022). Does public opinion affect the preferences of foreign policy leaders? Experimental evidence from the UK Parliament. Journal of Politics, 84(3), 1263–1883.
Clark, A. M. (2013). The normative context of human rights criticism: Treaty ratification and U.N. mechanisms. In T. Risse, S. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The Persistent Power of Human rights: From commitment to Compliance. Cambridge University Press.
Dai, X. (2007). International institutions and national policies. Cambridge University Press.
Davis, D., Murdie, A., & Steinmetz, C. G. (2012). Makers and shapers: Human rights ingos and public opinion. Human Rights Quarterly, 34(1), 199–224.
Erickson, J. (2014). Saving face, looking good, and building international reputation in east and west. In L. Pauly, & B. Jentleson (Eds.), Power in a Complex Global System. Routledge.
Falkner, R. (2016). The paris agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107–1125.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
Greenhill, B. (2020). How can international organizations shape public opinion? Analysis of a pair of survey-based experiments. Review of International Organizations, 15, 165–188.
Greenhill, B., & Reiter, D. (2022). Naming and shaming, government messaging, and backlash effects: Experimental evidence from the convention against torture. Journal of Human Rights, 21(4), 399–418.
Grieco, J., Gelpi, C., Reifler, J., & Feaver, P. (2011). Let’s get a second opinion: International institutions and american public support for war. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 563–583.
Hafner-Burton, E. (2008). Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization, 62(4), 689–716.
Human Rights Watch. n.d. Our History. https://www.hrw.org/our-history.
Hymans, J. (2006). The psychology of nuclear proliferation: Identity, emotions, and foreign policy. Cambridge University Press.
Jordans, F. (2021). World leaders cheer US return to climate fight under Biden. Associated Press 21 January.
Kahn-Nisser, S. (2021). For better or worse: Shaming, faming, and human rights abuse. Journal of Peace Research, 58(3), 479–493.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.
Kertzer, J. (2022). Re-assessing elite-public gaps in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 66(3), 539–553.
Kertzer, J., & Zeitzoff, T. (2017). A bottom-up theory of public opinion about foreign policy. American Journal of Political Science, 61(3), 543–558.
Koliev, F., Page, D., & Tallberg, J. (2022). The domestic impact of international shaming: Evidence from climate change and human rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 86(3), 748–761.
Krain, M. (2012). J’accuse! Does naming and shaming perpetrators reduce the severity of genocides or politicides? International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 574–589.
Larson, D., & Shevchenko, A. (2010). Status Seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to U.S. Primacy. International Security, 34(4), 63–95.
Lau, R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176–1209.
Lebovic, J., & Voeten, E. (2009). The cost of shame: International organizations and foreign aid in the punishing of human rights violators. Journal of Peace Research, 46(1), 79–97.
Mantilla, G. (2018). Forum isolation: Social opprobrium and the origins of the international law of internal conflict. International Organization, 72(2), 317–349.
McDermott, R. (2022). Psychology, leaders, and new deterrence dilemmas. In V. Narang, & S. Sagan (Eds.), The Fragile Balance of Terror: Deterrence in the New Nuclear Age. Cornell University Press.
Mikulaschek, C. (2023). The responsive public: How EU decisions shape public opinion on salient policies. European Union Politics, 24(4), 645–665.
Mitchell, R., & Carpenter, C. (2019). Norms for the earth: Changing the climate on climate change. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4(4), 413–429.
Morton, A., & Hannam, P. (2021). Australia’s 2050 net zero emissions plan relies on ‘gross manipulation’ of data, experts say. The Guardian October 29.
Mukherjee, R. (2022). Ascending order: Rising powers and the politics of status in international institutions. Cambridge University Press.
Müller, H. (2011). A nuclear nonproliferation test: Obama’s nuclear policy and the 2010 npt review conference. The Nonproliferation Review, 18(1), 219–236.
Murdie, A., & Davis, D. (2012). Shaming and blaming: Using events data to assess the impact of human rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 1–16.
Murdie, A., & Peksen, D. (2015). Women’s rights INGO shaming and the government respect for women’s rights. Review of International Organizations, 10(1), 1–22.
O’Malley, N. (2021). On COP26 eve, praise and scorn as Morrison’s climate hand ‘forced’. Sydney Morning Herald. 29 October.
Petrova, M. (2016). Rhetorical entrapment and normative enticement: How the UK turned from Spoiler into Champion of the Cluster Munition Ban. International Studies Quarterly, 60(3), 387–399.
Petrova, M. (2019). Naming and praising in Humanitarian Norm Development. World Politics, 71(3), 586–630.
Price, R. (1998). Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines. International Organization, 52(3), 613–644.
Shayo, M. (2009). A model of social identity with an application to political economy: Nation, class, and redistribution. American Political Science Review, 103(2), 147–174.
Shields, B. (2021). Boris johnson hails scott morrison’s ‘heroic’ net zero policy. Sydney Morning Herald. 26 October.
Snyder, J. (2020). Backlash against human rights shaming: Emotions in groups. International Theory, 12, 109–132.
Squatrito, T., Lundgren, M., & Sommerer, T. (2019). Shaming by international organizations: Mapping condemnatory speech acts across 27 international organizations, 1980–2015. Cooperation and Conflict, 54(3), 356–377.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole.
Terman, R. (2020). The positive side of negative identity: Stigma and deviance in backlash movements. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(4), 619–630.
Terman, R., & Voeten, E. (2018). The relational politics of shame: Evidence from the universal periodic review. Review of International Organizations, 13(1), 1–23.
Tingley, D., & Tomz, M. (2022). The effects of naming and shaming on public support for compliance with international agreements: An experimental analysis of the paris agreement. International Organization, 76(2), 445–468.
Tomz, M., Weeks, J., & Yarhi-Milo, K. (2020). Public opinion and decisions about military force in democracies. International Organization, 74(1), 119–143.
Torres-Beltran, A., & Mailhot, C. (2023). The dynamic effect of un sea reporting on the actions of peacekeeping contributing countries. International Studies Quarterly. Forthcoming.
Towns, A. (2010). Women and states: Norms and hierarchies in international society. Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgements
I thank Jiwon Baik, Stephen Chaudoin, Alex Dyzenhaus, Lincoln Hines, Cameron Mailhot, Sarah Maxey, Nina Obermeier, Lindsey Pruett, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and feedback.
Funding
This research received financial support from the Cornell University Government Department.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Axel Dreher.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Egel, N. Catching flies with vinegar or honey? Shaming, praising, and public support for international agreements. Rev Int Organ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09529-4
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-024-09529-4