Can a leader reduce the audience costs imposed for backing down completely on a threat by opting instead to ‘back up’ to a less hawkish policy? Current research examines the political repercussions of making a threat and then taking no action at all. Real world leaders, however, often ‘back up’ and implement policies that involve some action – for instance, imposing sanctions after threatening military force, rather than backing down entirely. This article argues that audience costs can be mitigated through policy substitution: backing up to less hawkish policies – that reduce inconsistency between a leader’s words and deeds – may reduce audience costs. A series of original survey experiments finds support for the argument and demonstrates that the population treats inconsistency as a continuum. The findings have implications for domestic politics and crisis bargaining. Domestically, a leader who backs up faces lower audience costs and is seen as more competent than one who backs down. Yet those on the receiving end of threats are less likely to believe the future threats of a foreign leader who has previously backed up or backed down. Backing up therefore degrades the credibility of crisis signals by making it difficult for rivals to distinguish between credible threats and those that will be backed up.

When advising civilian leaders on the use of force, are nonelected officials swayed by public opinion? Scholars have long debated whether public preferences affect foreign policy, but most studies focus on elected politicians, overlooking the nonelected officials who formulate policies and advise leaders. Bureaucrats and nonelected officials are expected to provide advice based on technical expertise, yet they may have institutional incentives and civic-minded reasons to recommend actions that align with popular preferences. This potentially creates additional channels through which public opinion influences policy decisions. An original survey experiment fielded on US military officers reveals that public opposition makes military leaders less likely to recommend the use of force. This article contributes to debates on the role of public opinion in foreign policymaking, integrates research on public opinion and civil–military relations, and yields broader insights for scholars studying the behavior of officials who are not subject to electoral incentives. Al asesorar a los dirigentes civiles sobre el uso de la fuerza, los funcionarios no electos ¿se dejan influir por la opinión pública? Los estudiosos llevan mucho tiempo debatiendo si las preferencias del público afectan a la política exterior, pero la mayoría de los trabajos se centran en los políticos electos, pasando por alto a los funcionarios no electos que formulan las políticas y asesoran a los líderes. Se espera que los burócratas y los funcionarios no electos ofrezcan un asesoramiento basado en la experiencia técnica, pero que puedan tener incentivos institucionales y razones de carácter cívico para recomendar acciones que se alineen con las preferencias populares. Potencialmente, esto crea canales adicionales a través de los cuales la opinión pública influye en las decisiones políticas. Una original encuesta realizada a oficiales militares estadounidenses revela que la oposición pública hace que los líderes militares sean menos propensos a recomendar el uso de la fuerza. Este trabajo contribuye a los debates sobre el papel de la opinión pública en la construcción de la política exterior, integra la investigación sobre la opinión pública y las relaciones cívico–militares, y aporta una visión más amplia para los estudiosos que evalúan el comportamiento de los funcionarios que no son objeto de incentivos electorales. Les officiels non élus sont-ils influencés par l'opinion publique lorsqu'ils conseillent des dirigeants civils sur le recours à la force? Des chercheurs ont longuement débattu pour déterminer si les préférences publiques affectaient la politique étrangère, mais la plupart des études se concentrent sur les politiciens élus en négligeant les officiels non élus qui formulent les politiques et conseillent les dirigeants. Les bureaucrates et officiels non élus sont supposés prodiguer des conseils reposant sur une expertise technique, mais ils peuvent toutefois avoir des motivations institutionnelles et des raisons d'ordre civique de recommander des mesures alignées sur les préférences populaires. Cela crée potentiellement des canaux supplémentaires par lesquels l'opinion publique influence les décisions politiques. Une expérience d'enquête originale menée sur des officiers de l'Armée américaine révèle que l'opposition publique rend les dirigeants militaires moins susceptibles de recommander le recours à la force. Cet article contribue aux débats sur le rôle de l'opinion publique dans l’élaboration de la politique étrangère en y intégrant des recherches sur l'opinion publique et sur les relations entre civils et militaires et en apportant des renseignements plus larges aux chercheurs qui étudient le comportement des officiels qui ne sont pas sujets à des motivations électorales.

Political scientists are increasingly integrating wargames into their research. Either by fielding original games or by leveraging archival wargame materials, researchers can study rare events or topics where evidence is difficult to observe. However, scholars have little guidance on how to apply this novel methodological approach to political science research. This article evaluates how political scientists can use wargames as a method of scholarly inquiry and sets out to establish a research agenda for wargaming in International Relations. We first differentiate wargames from other methodological approaches and highlight their ecological validity. We then chart out how researchers can build and run their own games or draw from archival wargames for theory development and testing. In doing so, we explain how researchers can navigate issues of recruitment, bias, validity, and generalizability when using wargames for research, and identify ways to evaluate the potential benefits and pitfalls of wargames as a tool of inquiry. We argue that wargames offer unique opportunities for political scientists to study decision-making processes both in and beyond the International Relations subfield.

How do emerging technologies that erode governments’ near-monopolies on intelligence information affect public support for leaders and their foreign policies? Technologies—like imagery satellites—that were once the domain of state governments are now increasingly available to commercial and private actors. As a result, non-government entities can now exercise the disclosure decision, publicly divulging information whose release was once controlled by states. We argue that non-government entities with access to these technologies serve as alternative information sources that can verify government claims or reveal activities governments have not previously acknowledged. Using original survey experiments we find that commercial satellite imagery can serve as an informational cue that shifts public opinion, and, depending on its content, either attenuates or bolsters the effect of similar cues from government sources. The findings advance debates over secrecy in international relations and on the effect of emerging technologies in the security domain.

No abstract