Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 53
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Bayram, A. Burcu 2016. Aiding Strangers: Generalized Trust and the Moral Basis of Public Support for Foreign Development Aid. Foreign Policy Analysis, p. orw008.

    Davies, Graeme A M and Johns, Robert 2016. R2P from below: Does the British public view humanitarian interventions as ethical and effective?. International Politics, Vol. 53, Issue. 1, p. 118.

    Gottfried, Matthew S. and Trager, Robert F. 2016. A Preference for War: How Fairness and Rhetoric Influence Leadership Incentives in Crises. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 60, Issue. 2, p. 243.

    Heinrich, Tobias Kobayashi, Yoshiharu and Peterson, Timothy M. 2016. Sanction Consequences and Citizen Support: A Survey Experiment. International Studies Quarterly, p. sqw019.

    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.

    Lutmar, Carmela Carneiro, Cristiane L. and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin 2016. Formal Commitments and States’ Interests: Compliance in International Relations. International Interactions, Vol. 42, Issue. 4, p. 559.

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

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

    Carter, David B. 2015. The Compellence Dilemma: International Disputes with Violent Groups. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 59, Issue. 3, p. 461.

    Gelpi, Christopher and Grieco, Joseph M. 2015. Competency Costs in Foreign Affairs: Presidential Performance in International Conflicts and Domestic Legislative Success, 1953-2001. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 2, p. 440.

    Hyde, Susan D. 2015. Experiments in International Relations: Lab, Survey, and Field. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 18, Issue. 1, p. 403.

    Ito, Banri 2015. Does electoral competition affect politicians’ trade policy preferences? Evidence from Japan. Public Choice, Vol. 165, Issue. 3-4, p. 239.

    Kaarbo, Juliet 2015. A Foreign Policy Analysis Perspective on the Domestic Politics Turn in IR Theory. International Studies Review, Vol. 17, Issue. 2, p. 189.

    Leeds, Brett Ashley 2015. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.

    Levy, Jack S. McKoy, Michael K. Poast, Paul and Wallace, Geoffrey P.R. 2015. Backing Out or Backing In? Commitment and Consistency in Audience Costs Theory. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 4, p. 988.

    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.

    Miller, Ross A. and Albert, Karen 2015. If It Leads, It Bleeds (and If It Bleeds, It Leads): Media Coverage and Fatalities in Militarized Interstate Disputes. Political Communication, Vol. 32, Issue. 1, p. 61.

    Reinsberg, Bernhard 2015. Foreign Aid Responses to Political Liberalization. World Development, Vol. 75, p. 46.

    Bachar, Gilat and Weiner, Allen S. 2014. Governments, publics, and enemies: Intragroup dynamics as barriers to conflict resolution. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, Vol. 7, Issue. 2-3, p. 198.

    Bausch, Andrew W. 2014. An Experimental Test of Selectorate Theory. International Interactions, Vol. 40, Issue. 4, p. 533.


Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach

  • Michael Tomz (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 October 2007

What makes international threats credible? Recent theories point to domestic audience costs—the domestic price a leader would pay for making foreign threats and then backing down. This article provides the first direct evidence of audience costs. The analysis, based on experiments embedded in public opinion surveys, shows that audience costs exist across a wide range of conditions and increase with the level of escalation. The costs are evident throughout the population, and especially among politically active citizens who have the greatest potential to shape government policy. Finally, preliminary evidence suggests that audience costs arise because citizens care about the international reputation of the country or leader. These findings help identify how, and under what conditions, domestic audiences make commitments credible. At the same time, they demonstrate the promise of using experiments to answer previously intractable questions in the field of international relations.I thank Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS), the National Science Foundation (CAREER Grant SES-0548285), and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences for financial support. Colleagues at Knowledge Networks provided invaluable assistance in fielding the surveys. For helpful comments I am grateful to Jim Fearon, Page Fortna, John Freeman, Jon Krosnick, Skip Lupia, Helen Milner, Diana Mutz, Ken Scheve, Ken Schultz, Jas Sekhon, Alastair Smith, Paul Sniderman, Rob Van Houweling, Jonathan Wand, Jessica Weeks, and the anonymous referees. I also thank seminar participants at Berkeley, CASBS, Columbia, Duke, NYU, Rice, and Yale, and conference participations at the International Studies Association and the TESS meetings at the University of Pennsylvania.

Recommend this journal

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

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *