Framing, Public Diplomacy, and Anti-Americanism in Central Asia

The US State Department increasingly relies on efforts of public diplomacy to improve America's image abroad. We test the theoretical efficacy of these efforts through an experiment. Participants were recruited in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. All but those participants randomly assigned to a control group read a quote about religious tolerance and pluralism in the United States. We varied the attribution of this quote to President Bush, to an unnamed US Ambassador, to an ordinary American, or to no one. We then asked respondents a battery of questions about their opinions of the United States before and after a long discussion with other participants about the United States. We find that the identity of the messenger matters, as those who read the quote attributed to Bush tended to have lower opinions of the United States. After the discussion, these views partially dissipated. Post-discussion views were more heavily influenced by how other participants viewed the United States. After controlling for the source and location of the discussion, when the discussion took place among people with more positive initial views of the United States, views of the United States improved. However, when there was a large range of views in the discussion, post-discussion views of the United States were relatively worse. Based on this study, we suggest new directions for the conduct of public diplomacy.美国国务院日益依赖公共外交（public diplomacy）举措以改善美国在海外的国家形象。本研究通过一项实验，对这类举措的理论效能开展检验。研究招募了吉尔吉斯斯坦与塔吉克斯坦的参与者，除随机分配至对照组的参与者外，其余所有参与者均阅读了一段关于美国宗教宽容与多元主义的引述。我们对该引述的发布者归属进行了变量操控：分别将其归因于布什总统、一名未具名的美国大使、一名普通美国民众，或不标注发布者。随后，在与其他参与者就美国展开长时间讨论的前后，我们向受访者发放了一系列有关其对美国看法的问题。研究发现，信息发布者的身份会产生显著影响：阅读了归因于布什总统的引述的参与者，其对美国的好感度普遍偏低。讨论过后，这类负面看法得到了一定程度的缓解。讨论后的看法更多受到其他参与者对美国看法的影响。在控制讨论的发起方与举办地点变量后，我们发现：若讨论参与者初始对美国的看法普遍更为积极，则讨论后参与者对美国的好感度会有所提升；但如果讨论中参与者的看法差异较大，则讨论后参与者对美国的好感度会相对偏低。基于本研究结果，我们为公共外交实践提出了新的发展方向。