IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v65y2021i7-8p1378-1404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reputations for Resolve and Higher-Order Beliefs in Crisis Bargaining

Author

Listed:
  • Allan Dafoe
  • Remco Zwetsloot
  • Matthew Cebul

Abstract

Reputations for resolve are said to be one of the few things worth fighting for, yet they remain inadequately understood. Discussions of reputation focus almost exclusively on first-order belief change— A stands firm, B updates its beliefs about A ’s resolve. Such first-order reputational effects are important, but they are not the whole story. Higher-order beliefs—what A believes about B ’s beliefs, and so on—matter a great deal as well. When A comes to believe that B is more resolved, this may decrease A ’s resolve, and this in turn may increase B ’s resolve, and so on. In other words, resolve is interdependent . We offer a framework for estimating higher-order effects, and find evidence of such reasoning in a survey experiment on quasi-elites. Our findings indicate both that states and leaders can develop potent reputations for resolve, and that higher-order beliefs are often responsible for a large proportion of these effects (40 percent to 70 percent in our experimental setting). We conclude by complementing the survey with qualitative evidence and laying the groundwork for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Allan Dafoe & Remco Zwetsloot & Matthew Cebul, 2021. "Reputations for Resolve and Higher-Order Beliefs in Crisis Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(7-8), pages 1378-1404, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:65:y:2021:i:7-8:p:1378-1404
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002721995549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002721995549
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002721995549?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. Acharya, Avidit & Grillo, Edoardo, 2015. "War with Crazy Types," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 281-307, May.
    2. Kertzer, Joshua D & Renshon, Jonathan & Yarhi-Milo, Keren, 2021. "How Do Observers Assess Resolve?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 308-330, January.
    3. Mildenberger, Matto & Tingley, Dustin, 2019. "Beliefs about Climate Beliefs: The Importance of Second-Order Opinions for Climate Politics," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 1279-1307, October.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    5. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2016. "Quantal Response Equilibrium:A Stochastic Theory of Games," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10743.
    6. Brad L. LeVeck & Neil Narang, 2017. "How International Reputation Matters: Revisiting Alliance Violations in Context," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 797-821, September.
    7. Tingley, Dustin H. & Walter, Barbara F., 2011. "The Effect of Repeated Play on Reputation Building: An Experimental Approach," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 343-365, April.
    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. Casey Crisman-Cox, 2022. "Democracy, reputation for resolve, and civil conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 382-394, May.
    2. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    3. Alan Kirman & François Laisney & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2023. "Relaxing the symmetry assumption in participation games: a specification test for cluster-heterogeneity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 850-878, September.
    4. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    5. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    6. Robert Kubinec, 2018. "Patrons or Clients? Measuring and Experimentally Evaluating Political Connections of Firms in Morocco and Jordan," Working Papers 1280, Economic Research Forum, revised 26 Dec 2018.
    7. Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves & Koop, Christel & Matakos, Konstantinos & Unan, Asli & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "We Cannot Disagree Forever! Reality Polarization and Citizens’ Post-Pandemic Fiscal Adjustment Preferences," SocArXiv 69tup, Center for Open Science.
    8. E. Keith Smith & Dennis Kolcava & Thomas Bernauer, 2024. "Stringent sustainability regulations for global supply chains are supported across middle-income democracies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    9. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Jarke-Neuert, Johannes & Perino, Grischa & Schwickert, Henrike, 2021. "Free-Riding for Future: Field Experimental Evidence of Strategic Substitutability in Climate Protest," SocArXiv sh6dm, Center for Open Science.
    11. Athey, Susan & Karlan, Dean & Palikot, Emil & Yuan, Yuan, 2022. "Smiles in Profiles: Improving Fairness and Efficiency Using Estimates of User Preferences in Online Marketplaces," Research Papers 4071, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. 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.
    13. Jens Weghake & Claudia Keser & Martin Schmidt & Mathias Erlei, 2018. "Pricing in Asymmetric Two-Sided Markets: A Laboratory Experiment," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0018, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    14. Arntz, Melanie & Brüll, Eduard & Lipowski, Cäcilia, 2021. "Do preferences for urban amenities really differ by skill?," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-045, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Topi Miettinen & Olli Ropponen & Pekka Sääskilahti, 2020. "Prospect Theory, Fairness, and the Escalation of Conflict at a Negotiation Impasse," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(4), pages 1535-1574, October.
    16. Sambuddha Ghosh & Gabriele Gratton & Caixia Shen, 2019. "Intimidation: Linking Negotiation And Conflict," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 60(4), pages 1589-1618, November.
    17. Gary Charness & James Cox & Catherine Eckel & Charles Holt & Brian Jabarian, 2023. "The Virtues of Lab Experiments," CESifo Working Paper Series 10796, CESifo.
    18. Marco Angrisani & Antonio Guarino & Philippe Jehiel & Toru Kitagawa, 2021. "Information Redundancy Neglect versus Overconfidence: A Social Learning Experiment," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(3), pages 163-197, August.
    19. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2020. "Why should majority voting be unfair?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 281-295.
    20. Zhang, Jing & Wang, Yan & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Modeling multi-target defender-attacker games with quantal response attack strategies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).

    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:65:y:2021:i:7-8:p:1378-1404. 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.