Anti-Americanism in Europe: Theoretical Mechanisms and Empirical Evidence

Abstract

One of the most popular explanations for post-9/11 anti-Americanism argues that resentment against America and Americans is mainly a function of the US government's unpopular actions. The present article challenges this interpretation: first, it argues that neither the vitality of the resentment in times when the United States had no influence in the respective parts of the world nor its recent radical manifestations are accounted for in a political reductionist framework. In fact, specific traditions of anti-Americanism have an influence on the negative attitudes observed today, as a comparison between Britain, France, Germany, and Poland reveals. Second, this article suggests an alternative theoretical approach. Anti-Americanism can be explained by two basic mechanisms: it functions as a strategy to project denied and disliked self-concepts onto an external object, and it offers an interpretation frame for complex social processes that allows to reduce cognitive dissonance. Multivariate analyses based on empirical data collected in the Pew surveys of 2002 and 2007 show the fruitfulness of our theoretical approach.

Partisan views of Russia: Analyzing European party electoral manifestos since 1991

“…This makes attitudes toward Russia different from attitudes toward the United States. There is a partisan aspect to the anti-Americanism and attitudes toward the United States, especially through attitudes toward militarism and capitalism (Beyer & Liebe, 2014;Everts & Isernia, 2015;Katzenstein & Keohane, 2007). However, especially after the end of the Cold War, there is no reason to expect much variation among the parties in their attitudes toward Russia on the basis of partizanship in the traditional left-right sense.…”

Trump and the Image of the United States in Latin America

“…In recent years, researchers have used multivariate analyses to study anti-Americanism. We also apply this innovative approach in this paper to contribute to this methodological debate on the subject 20,21,22,23 .…”