IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v66y2022i4-5p677-703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher W. Blair
  • Jonathan A. Chu
  • Joshua A. Schwartz

Abstract

Prominent research holds that the use of weapons of mass destruction is taboo. But how strong are these norms? Investigating this question among the mass public, we argue that some citizens actually support taboo policies in private but are unwilling to express counter-normative opinions openly due to fear of social sanction. These insincere norm-holders are difficult to identify empirically because they are observationally equivalent to sincere norm-holders in direct-question surveys. To overcome this challenge, we use a list design, which allows survey respondents to indirectly express sensitive opinions. The results from three list experiments show that between 10% and 17% of Americans falsify their preferences over chemical weapons use when asked directly. In an extension, we explore our framework in the realm of nuclear weapons and elite behavior. Our findings advance a specific debate on the strength of weapons taboos, while our conceptualization of insincere norm-holders and methodological application have broader implications for how scholars might think about and measure norms in international politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher W. Blair & Jonathan A. Chu & Joshua A. Schwartz, 2022. "The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 677-703, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:66:y:2022:i:4-5:p:677-703
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027211057057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027211057057
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027211057057?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. Güneş Murat Tezcür & Doreen Horschig, 2020. "A conditional norm: chemical warfare from colonialism to contemporary civil wars," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 366-384, November.
    2. Tannenwald, Nina, 1999. "The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 433-468, July.
    3. Schwartz, Joshua A. & Blair, Christopher W., 2020. "Do Women Make More Credible Threats? Gender Stereotypes, Audience Costs, and Crisis Bargaining," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(4), pages 872-895, October.
    4. Frye, Timothy & Reuter, Ora John & Szakonyi, David, 2019. "Hitting Them With Carrots: Voter Intimidation and Vote Buying in Russia," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 857-881, July.
    5. Girard, Tyler, 2021. "Reconciling the Theoretical and Empirical Study of International Norms: A New Approach to Measurement," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(1), pages 331-338, February.
    6. Frye, Timothy & Reuter, Ora John & Szakonyi, David, 2019. "Hitting Them With Carrots: Voter Intimidation and Vote Buying in Russia – CORRIGENDUM," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 882-882, July.
    7. Bansak, Kirk, 2020. "Comparative Causal Mediation and Relaxing the Assumption of No Mediator–Outcome Confounding: An Application to International Law and Audience Costs," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 222-243, April.
    8. Wallace, Geoffrey P.R., 2013. "International Law and Public Attitudes Toward Torture: An Experimental Study," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 105-140, January.
    9. Jonathan A. Chu, 2019. "A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(5), pages 1140-1164, May.
    10. Tomz, Michael & Weeks, Jessica L.P. & Yarhi-Milo, Keren, 2020. "Public Opinion and Decisions About Military Force in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 119-143, January.
    11. Chu, Jonathan A. & Holmes, Marcus & Traven, David, 2021. "Inferring Intentions from Consequences: How Moral Judgments Shape Citizen Perceptions of Wartime Conduct," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 203-207, July.
    12. Coppock Alexander, 2017. "Did Shy Trump Supporters Bias the 2016 Polls? Evidence from a Nationally-representative List Experiment," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 29-40, October.
    13. Press, Daryl G. & Sagan, Scott D. & Valentino, Benjamin A., 2013. "Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 188-206, February.
    14. Cloward, Karisa, 2014. "False Commitments: Local Misrepresentation and the International Norms Against Female Genital Mutilation and Early Marriage," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(3), pages 495-526, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jonathan A. Chu, 2019. "A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(5), pages 1140-1164, May.
    2. Michael Rochlitz & Evgeniya Mitrokhina & Irina Nizovkina, 2020. "Bureaucratic Discrimination in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: Experimental Evidence from Russia," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2010, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    3. Vladimir Shchukin & Cemal Eren Arbatli, 2022. "Clientelism and development: Vote-buying meets patronage," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(1), pages 3-34, January.
    4. David H. Bearce & Thomas R. Cook, 2018. "The first image reversed: IGO signals and mass political attitudes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 595-619, December.
    5. Ananyev, Maxim & Poyker, Michael, 2022. "Do dictators signal strength with electoral fraud?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    6. Oleg Sidorkin & Dmitriy Vorobyev, 2020. "Extra votes to signal loyalty: regional political cycles and national elections in Russia," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 183-213, October.
    7. Hager, Anselm & Hennicke, Moritz & Krause, Werner & Mergele, Lukas, 2021. "Privatizations Spark Socialist Backlash: Evidence from East Germany’s Transformation," OSF Preprints cmsyn, Center for Open Science.
    8. Brian C. Rathbun & Rachel Stein, 2020. "Greater Goods: Morality and Attitudes toward the Use of Nuclear Weapons," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(5), pages 787-816, May.
    9. Viskupič Filip, 2020. "More Valuable than Blood and Treasure? Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Status on Domestic Preferences for Military Intervention," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Valeria Babayan & Israel Marques II & Michael Mironyuk & Aleksei Turobov, 2021. "Public Trust In Internet Voting Systems: Evidence From Russian Public Opinion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 83/PS/2021, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    11. Lauren Sukin, 2020. "Credible Nuclear Security Commitments Can Backfire: Explaining Domestic Support for Nuclear Weapons Acquisition in South Korea," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(6), pages 1011-1042, July.
    12. Patrick Gill-Tiney, 2022. "A Liberal Peace?: The Growth of Liberal Norms and the Decline of Interstate Violence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(3), pages 413-442, April.
    13. David Szakonyi, 2020. "Candidate Filtering: The Strategic Use of Electoral Fraud in Russia," Working Papers 2020-23, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    14. Joshua Alley, 2023. "Elite Cues and Public Attitudes Towards Military Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(7-8), pages 1537-1563, August.
    15. Victor Asal & Nazli Avdan & Gary Ackerman, 2023. "Breaking taboos: Why insurgents pursue and use CBRN weapons," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(2), pages 193-208, March.
    16. Thorin M. Wright, 2020. "Revisionist Conflict and State Repression," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 49-72, March.
    17. David A. Steinberg & Yeling Tan, 2023. "Public responses to foreign protectionism: Evidence from the US-China trade war," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 145-167, January.
    18. Eva‐Maria Trüdinger & Achim Hildebrandt & Sebastian Jäckle & Jonas Löser, 2021. "Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 830-843, March.
    19. Michal Onderco & Michal Smetana & Tom W. Etienne, 2023. "Hawks in the making? European public views on nuclear weapons post‐Ukraine," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(2), pages 305-317, May.
    20. Janina Dill & Scott D. Sagan & Benjamin Valentino, 2023. "Inconstant Care: Public Attitudes Towards Force Protection and Civilian Casualties in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(4), pages 587-616, April.

    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:4-5:p:677-703. 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.