Under Review
"Race, Shaming, and International Human Rights." (with Zoltan Buzas) Conditionally Accepted, American Journal of Political Science
Can Human Rights Organizations (HROs) shame governments without fueling racism against diasporas or appearing racist? To what extent can shamed governments recover public support lost to shaming by accusing their critics of racism? Employing two US survey experiments involving 6,739 respondents and eleven prominent HRO interviews, we offer three novel findings. First, shaming decreased support for shamed countries (Israel and China) but did not fuel racism (antisemitism and anti-Asianism). If shamers face a racial dilemma, it is less about how to shame without fueling racism, and more about how to shame without appearing racist. Our second finding points toward a solution: when shaming included an anti-racist cue denouncing racism, respondents perceived it as less racist. Finally, shamed governments can employ racial countershaming to recover some, but not all, of the public support lost to shaming. We contribute to the International Relations shaming literature and offer recommendations about racially responsible shaming.
"The Generalizability of IR Experiments Beyond the United States." (with Jessica Weeks, Jonathan Renshon and Chagai Weis). Conditionally Accepted, American Political Science Review
Theories of international relations (IR) typically make predictions intended to hold across many countries. Nonetheless, existing experimental evidence testing the micro-foundations of IR theories relies overwhelmingly on studies fielded in the U.S. We argue that the nature of what constitutes a theory of IR makes it especially important to know whether particular findings hold across countries. To examine the generalizability of IR experimental findings beyond the U.S., we implemented a pre-registered and harmonized multi-site replication study, fielding four prominent IR experiments in seven countries: Brazil, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Nigeria, and the U.S. We find that all four experiments replicate in nearly all of the countries, a pattern likely due to treatment effect homogeneity. Our study reveals that findings from the U.S. are similar to findings from a wide range of countries, offering important theoretical and empirical implications to inform the design and interpretation of future experimental research in IR.
"Praise from Peers Promotes Empathetic Behavior." (with Adeline Lo and Jonathan Renshon). R&R Nature Human Behavior
Outgroup bias is a well-documented and pernicious phenomenon, manifesting in negative attitudes and behavior towards outgroups. Empathy—taking the perspective and understanding the experiences of others—holds considerable promise for attenuating outgroup bias. Yet, engaging in empathy is costly and existing interventions to encourage it are expensive and difficult to scale. Through six pilots, we develop a non-invasive, low-cost, peer praise intervention that encourages empathetic behavior towards generalized “others” by stimulating positive emotions. This research tests the hypothesis that our peer praise intervention promotes empathetic behavior among white respondents in the U.S. towards black and Latino/a Americans, a context where racial/ethnic outgroup bias is particularly durable and pernicious. We (1) measure real choices to engage in empathy with outgroups (2) test whether effects of peer praise are durable using a panel design (3) explore downstream effects on attitudinal/behavioural support for historical civil rights and advocacy groups (UnidosUS, BLM).
"Champions and Pariahs: Image Effects of Naming and Shaming." R&R Journal of Politics
How does international criticism shape attitudes towards foreign governments? Theories regarding `naming and shaming' often presuppose the impact of human rights criticism on reputations. However, previous research has primarily examined the consequences of shaming on the countries being targeted. In my study, I utilize a survey experiment conducted in the United States to investigate whether audiences in a third country (Country C) respond to human rights criticism directed by one country (Country A) towards another (Country B). In this pre-registered report, I posit that governments, by condemning human rights violators, can enhance their own global image while tarnishing the reputation of the targeted country. Furthermore, I contend that these effects are more pronounced when the criticizing country is an ally of the third-party audience, and when the target is its adversary. Additionally, I anticipate that shaming will influence the attitudes of third-party audiences towards their own country's adherence to international norms.