To Denounce, or Not To Denounce: Survey Experiments on Diplomatic Quarrels

Shoko Kohama, Kazunori Inamasu, Atsushi Tago*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)


Despite widespread concern over heated diplomatic debates and growing interest in public diplomacy, it is still incompletely understood what type of message is more effective for gaining support from foreign public, or the international society, in situations where disputing countries compete in diplomatic campaigns. This study, through multiple survey experiments, uncovers the effect of being silent, issuing positive justification, and negative accusation, in interaction with the opponent’s strategy. We demonstrate that negative verbal attacks “work” and undermine the target’s popularity as they do in electoral campaigns. Unlike domestic electoral campaigns, however, negative diplomacy has little “backlash” and persuades people to support the attacker. Consequently, mutual verbal fights make neither party more popular than the other. Nevertheless, this does not discourage disputants from waging verbal fights due to the structure similar to the one-shot prisoner’s dilemma. We also find that positive messages are highly context-dependent—that is, their effects greatly depend on the opponent’s strategy and value proximity between the messenger and the receiver.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)243-260
Number of pages18
JournalPolitical Communication
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Apr 3
Externally publishedYes


  • conflict
  • negative campaign
  • public diplomacy
  • survey experiment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Sociology and Political Science


Dive into the research topics of 'To Denounce, or Not To Denounce: Survey Experiments on Diplomatic Quarrels'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this