Whose Critique Matters?: Israeli Public Opinion toward International Criticism

• In Event: International Criticism, Public Opinion, and Human Rights

Abstract

The existing literature regarding the impact of “naming and shaming” on public opinion shows that public responses to international criticism are relational. That is, they are dependent on the identity of the “shamers.” So far, the research has focused primarily on criticism delivered by outgroup actors, neglecting criticism delivered by ingroup members. Incorporating constructivist literature on the multiplicity of identities with social psychology literature on inter-group criticism, this paper asks two questions. First, is international criticism better received by the public if it is delivered by a domestic actor, a diasporic actor, or a foreign actor? Second, is international criticism better received by the public if it is delivered in front of a domestic audience compared to a foreign audience?

Using a survey experiment on a sample of Israeli-Jewish citizens, this research seeks to understand the conditions under which foreign shaming is more likely to be accepted by the public. This has important implications for the study of norm enforcement and international social pressure, as it allows us to delve deeper into the micro-foundations of relational criticism – whose critique matters more and whose critique has a stronger positive or negative impact.

Authors

• Yehonatan Abramson, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

• Anil Menon, University of Michigan

• Abir Gitlin, Hebrew University of Jerusalem