Replication Data for: Anger Expressions and Coercive Credibility in International Crises

Why are some threats more credible than others? I argue that leaders’ anger expressions are a previously underappreciated source of coercive credibility. Specifically, leaders who express anger appear more credible because targets believe they are less sensitive to the costs of conflict. I test this argument through quantitative analysis of a novel dataset of world leaders’ public statement in crises from 1946-1996 and a U.S.-based survey experiment designed to test the mechanism. The observational evidence reveals that anger expressions increase the likelihood a threat will succeed. The experiment shows that anger expressions cause targets to infer greater resolve and that non-angry threats carry little credibility—and might even backfire. These findings not only shed light on a unique source of threat credibility but also highlight the crucial role of emotions in international relations with new data measuring political leaders’ emotional expressions over time and space.