Lotem Bassan-Nygate

​​"Breaking Commitments: Public Reactions to Withdrawals from International Climate Agreements." (with Sabrina Arias)

How does withdrawal from international agreements shape public opinion? We examine this question in the context of climate change, focusing on the Paris Agreement in both the U.S. and Argentina. While past research has examined the consequences of state withdrawal for compliance and international behavior, its effects on public opinion remain understudies. To investigate these dynamics, we conducted three studies: a U.S. survey-experiment manipulating expectations about withdrawal prior to President Trump's withdrawal from the agreement, a follow-up study measuring reactions to the actual U.S. withdrawal, and a replication in Argentina testing both domestic withdrawal and third-party reactions. Across studies, withdrawal cues reduce support for the Paris Agreement and, in some cases, climate attitudes and support for international law, with effects concentrated among politically aligned respondents. Overall, we show that withdrawing from international climate agreements can undermine public support for both the agreements themselves and related international norms.

​

“Shaming the Shamers: The Consequences of Accusing Human Rights Organizations of Racism.” (with Zoltan Buzas)

Human rights organizations (HROs) often rely on public shaming to expose and deter human rights abuses of state actors. Yet, HROs themselves increasingly face shaming, particularly through accusations of racism in their internal practices and their advocacy. We conceptualize and empirically examine the consequences of such anti-racist shaming aimed at HROs, a phenomenon which we term “shaming the shamers.” Integrating insights from research on shaming and reputation in International Relations as well as racial appeals in American Politics, we theorize how accusations of racism may damage HROs’ reputations and undermine their ability to mobilize public support. Evidence from survey experiments conducted in the United States and South Africa with over 5,400 respondents shows that shaming HROs for racism significantly worsens their image and harms respondents’ willingness to donate, sign petitions, or subscribe to the organizations’ newsletter. These effects are largely consistent across racial, ideological, and national subgroups. Exploratory analyses suggest that perceived hypocrisy and immorality of HROs drive these effects, and that racial shaming can produce reputational spillovers.

​​

​

In Preparation​

"Influencer Diplomacy: Non-Traditional Actors in Public Diplomacy." (with Sabrina Arias)

Public diplomacy, traditionally led by government actors through initiatives like state visits, foreign aid, and official messaging, aims to communicate with and attract foreign publics. However, states are increasingly delegating these efforts to private and non-state actors, including celebrities and social media influencers. Is this `influencer diplomacy‘ effective at accomplishing the goals of traditional public diplomacy? We theorize that the credibility and positionality of non-traditional messengers significantly impact their effectiveness. We propose a series of survey experiments in the U.S. to evaluate whether influencers, due to their likability and perceived authenticity (positionality), are more effective than traditional diplomats, or if their potential lack of expertise and objectivity (credibility) undermines their impact. This research contributes to understanding the evolving landscape of public diplomacy and the strategic use of influencers in IR.

​

"Human Rights, Shaming, and Sino-American Competition for the Global Public's Support." (with Zoltan Buzas)​