IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v59y2015i4p988-1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Backing Out or Backing In? Commitment and Consistency in Audience Costs Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Jack S. Levy
  • Michael K. McKoy
  • Paul Poast
  • Geoffrey P.R. Wallace

Abstract

Audience costs theory posits that domestic publics punish leaders for making an external threat and then backing down. One key mechanism driving this punishment involves the value the public places on consistency between their leaders’ statements and actions. If true, this mechanism should operate not only when leaders fail to implement threats, but also when they fail to honor promises to stay out of a conflict. We use a survey experiment to examine domestic responses to the president's decision to “back down” from public threats and “back into” foreign conflicts. We find the president loses support in both cases, but suffers more for “backing out” than “backing in.” These differential consequences are partially explained by asymmetries in the public's treatment of new information. Our findings strongly suggest that concerns over consistency undergird audience costs theory and that punishment for inconsistency will be incurred, regardless of the leader's initial policy course.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack S. Levy & Michael K. McKoy & Paul Poast & Geoffrey P.R. Wallace, 2015. "Backing Out or Backing In? Commitment and Consistency in Audience Costs Theory," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(4), pages 988-1001, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:59:y:2015:i:4:p:988-1001
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12197
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12197?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Justwan Florian & Fisher Sarah K., 2017. "International Adjudication and Public Opinion in Territorial Disputes: Evidence from a Survey Experiment Using Amazon Mechanical Turk," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 23(3), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Eryan Ramadhani, 2019. "Is Assertiveness Paying the Bill? China’s Domestic Audience Costs in the South China Sea Disputes," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 6(1), pages 30-54, April.
    3. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    4. Gregory J. Moore & Christopher B. Primiano, 2020. "Audience Costs and China’s South China Sea Policy," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 7(3), pages 325-348, December.
    5. Alyssa K Prorok & Deniz Cil, 2022. "Cheap talk or costly commitment? Leader statements and the implementation of civil war peace agreements," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 409-424, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:amposc:v:59:y:2015:i:4:p:988-1001. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.