Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 36
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Saunders, Elizabeth 2013. Ideology, Realpolitik, and US Foreign Policy. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 11, Issue. 02, p. 589.

    Miller, Ross A. 2015. You’ve Got to Know When to Fold ‘Em: International and Domestic Consequences of Capitulation, 1919–1999. International Interactions, Vol. 41, Issue. 4, p. 674.

    Downes, Alexander B. and Sechser, Todd S. 2012. The Illusion of Democratic Credibility. International Organization, Vol. 66, Issue. 03, p. 457.

    Weisiger, Alex  and Gartzke, Erik 2016. Debating the Democratic Peace in the International System. International Studies Quarterly, p. sqw022.

    Rosato, Sebastian 2015. The Inscrutable Intentions of Great Powers. International Security, Vol. 39, Issue. 3, p. 48.

    Chaudoin, Stephen 2014. Promises or Policies? An Experimental Analysis of International Agreements and Audience Reactions. International Organization, Vol. 68, Issue. 01, p. 235.

    Trager, Robert F. 2016. The Diplomacy of War and Peace. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 205.

    Quek, K. 2015. Discontinuities in signaling behavior upon the decision for war: an analysis of China's prewar signaling behavior. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 279.

    Gill, M. and Spirling, A. 2015. Estimating the Severity of the WikiLeaks U.S. Diplomatic Cables Disclosure. Political Analysis, Vol. 23, Issue. 2, p. 299.

    Weiss, Jessica Chen 2013. Authoritarian Signaling, Mass Audiences, and Nationalist Protest in China. International Organization, Vol. 67, Issue. 01, p. 1.

    Özyurt, Selçuk 2014. Audience costs and reputation in crisis bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 88, p. 250.

    Horovitz, Liviu 2014. Why do they want American Nukes? Central and Eastern European positions regarding US nonstrategic nuclear weapons. European Security, Vol. 23, Issue. 1, p. 73.

    Peterson, Timothy M. 2013. Sending a Message: The Reputation Effect of US Sanction Threat Behavior1. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 57, Issue. 4, p. 672.

    Beckley, Michael 2015. The Myth of Entangling Alliances: Reassessing the Security Risks of U.S. Defense Pacts. International Security, Vol. 39, Issue. 4, p. 7.

    McManus, Roseanne W. 2016. The Impact of Context on the Ability of Leaders to Signal Resolve. International Interactions, p. 1.

    Holmes, Marcus 2013. The Force of Face-to-Face Diplomacy: Mirror Neurons and the Problem of Intentions. International Organization, Vol. 67, Issue. 04, p. 829.

    Kopper, Akos 2016. Managing conflicting ‘Truth Claims’ – ambiguity in the diplomat's toolkit in East-Asian Island conflict. The Pacific Review, Vol. 29, Issue. 4, p. 603.

    Kertzer, Joshua D. and Brutger, Ryan 2016. Decomposing Audience Costs: Bringing the Audience Back into Audience Cost Theory. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 60, Issue. 1, p. 234.

    Janusch, Holger 2016. The Breakdown of International Negotiations: Social Conflicts, Audience Costs, and Reputation in Two-Level Games. International Negotiation, Vol. 21, Issue. 3, p. 495.

    O’Mahoney, Joseph 2015. Why did they do that?: the methodology of reasons for action. International Theory, Vol. 7, Issue. 02, p. 231.


The Cost of Empty Threats: A Penny, Not a Pound

  • DOI:
  • Published online: 17 August 2011

A large literature in political science takes for granted that democratic leaders would pay substantial domestic political costs for failing to carry out the public threats they make in international crises, and consequently that making threats substantially enhances their leverage in crisis bargaining. And yet proponents of this audience costs theory have presented very little evidence that this causal mechanism actually operates in real—as opposed to simulated—crises. We look for such evidence in post-1945 crises and find hardly any. Audience cost mechanisms are rare because (1) leaders see unambiguously committing threats as imprudent, (2) domestic audiences care more about policy substance than about consistency between the leader's words and deeds, (3) domestic audiences care about their country's reputation for resolve and national honor independent of whether the leader has issued an explicit threat, and (4) authoritarian targets of democratic threats do not perceive audience costs dynamics in the same way that audience costs theorists do. We found domestic audience costs as secondary mechanisms in a few cases where the public already had hawkish preferences before any threats were made.

Corresponding author
Jack Snyder is Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations, Political Science Department, Columbia University, 420 W. 118 Street, New York, NY 10027 (
Erica D. Borghard is a Ph.D. candidate, Political Science Department, Columbia University, 420 W. 118 Street, New York, NY 10027 (
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Gordon H. Chang 1988. “To the Nuclear Brink: Eisenhower, Dulles, and the Quemoy–Matsu Crisis.” International Security 12: 96123.

Joe Clare . 2007. “Domestic Audiences and Strategic Interests.” Journal of Politics 69: 732–45.

Joe Eyerman , and Robert A. Hart Jr. 1996. “An Empirical Test of the Audience Cost Proposition.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 40: 597616.

James D. Fearon 1997. “Signaling Foreign Policy Interests: Tying Hands versus Sinking Costs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 6890.

Geoffrey K. Fry 2005. The Politics of Decline. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

George H. Gallup , ed. 1976a. The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls: Great Britain 1937–1975, Vol. I. New York: Random House.

Alexandra Guisinger , and Alastair Smith . 2002. “Honest Threats: The Interaction of Reputation and Political Institutions in International Crises.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46: 175200.

Chen Jian . 2006. “The Tibetan Rebellion of 1959 and China's Changing Relations with India and the Soviet Union.” Journal of Cold War Studies 8: 54101.

Peter J. Partell , and Glenn Palmer . 1999. “Audience Costs and Interstate Crises: An Empirical Assessment of Fearon's Model of Dispute Outcomes.” International Studies Quarterly 43: 389405.

Jonathan Pearson . 2003. Sir Anthony Eden and the Suez Crisis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kenneth A. Schultz 2001b. “Looking for Audience Costs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 45: 3260.

Branislav L. Slantchev 2006. “Politicians, the Media, and Domestic Audience Costs.” International Studies Quarterly 50: 445–78.

Stephen M. Walt 1999. “Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies.” International Security 23: 548.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
Type Description Title
Supplementary Appendix

Snyder Supplementary Appendix
Snyder Supplementary Appendix

 Unknown (409 KB)
409 KB