Replication Data for: Democratic Reputations in Crises and War

Many IR theories argue that leaders and publics use regime type to draw inferences about behavior in conflict, with implications for how democracies act as well as how they are treated by other states. We show that these beliefs can be studied as reputations, and build a framework around reputations that adhere to regime types and whose content implicates not just resolve, but a host of other important attributes and expected behaviors. We put democratic reputations under the microscope, fielding survey experiments on members of the Israeli Knesset as well as six national samples in four democracies. We find strong evidence of democratic reputations’ existence and pervasiveness as well as insight into their content. Specifically, we find that the reputations are asymmetric: democracy is seen as considerably and consistently more favorable in war than in crises, suggesting that these regimes may have more difficulty signaling resolve than our theories suggest.

诸多国际关系（International Relations）理论指出，国家领导人与民众会依据政权类型对冲突中的行为模式展开推断，这一逻辑既影响民主国家的行为选择，也决定了他国对民主国家的应对策略。我们提出，此类认知可被视作声誉加以研究，并构建起一套围绕依附于政权类型的声誉的分析框架：这类声誉的内涵不仅涵盖作战决心，还涉及诸多其他重要属性与预期行为。我们针对民主声誉开展了系统性细致剖析，面向以色列议会（Knesset）成员以及四个民主国家的六个全国性样本实施了调查实验。研究结果为民主声誉的存在与普遍性提供了强有力的实证支持，同时也揭示了其内涵特征。具体而言，我们发现此类声誉具有不对称性：相较于危机情境，民主政体在战争场景中获得的评价显著且一贯更为正面。这表明，相较于既有理论的预判，这类政权在传递作战决心信号时可能面临更大困难。