Catching flies with vinegar or honey? Shaming, praising, and public support for international agreements

Abstract

How does international shaming and praising affect domestic support for joining international agreements? Many scholars have examined the role of shaming in leading countries to support international agreements, and a wide literature on social opprobrium suggests that both governments and citizens are sensitive to being named and shamed. Yet far less is known about the dynamics of praise in international relations and how they compare to the dynamics of shame. This article uses a survey experiment to test and compare the effects of praising and shaming on individuals’ support for their government joining an international agreement. Specifically, it tests whether praising or shaming from other countries leads individuals to support their country joining a hypothetical international agreement that would ban the use of explosive weapons. It finds that praising is effective in increasing public support for joining the treaty, while shaming is not. By examining the extent to which praising and shaming can shape public opinion on international security agreements, this article provides new insights regarding how states and NGOs can use these rhetorical tools to build support for new legal norms. For policymakers and activists seeking to promote new norms and agreements, understanding the role of praising and shaming in changing public opinion can help them better direct their resources and improve their strategies.