Strategic Calculations
Today Ukraine, Tomorrow Taiwan? Assessing US Reputation and Deterrence across International Crises
Rachel Myrick & Chen Wang
International Studies Quarterly, March 2026
Abstract:
When does a state’s reputation for resolve transfer across separate international crises and deter future challengers? We propose three assumptions underlying “Cross-Crisis Reputational Deterrence” (CCRD). First, a defender’s response to a crisis leads a new challenger to reassess the defender’s reputation (reputation formation). Second, the new challenger draws inferences about how the defender would behave in a different future crisis scenario (transfer of reputation). Third, anticipating the defender’s response, the challenger changes its preferences (deterrence by reputation). We test the CCRD logic by examining whether the initial US response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine impacted Chinese assertiveness toward Taiwan. A framing experiment in China in March 2022 finds that a weak US response to Russian aggression decreases perceptions of US resolve but does not ultimately impact Chinese attitudes toward Taiwan. Our findings illustrate the conditions under which CCRD is more or less likely to occur in international politics.
Closing Pandora’s Box: Can Shared Vulnerability Underpin Territorial Stability?
Jamie Hintson & Kenneth Schultz
International Organization, forthcoming
Abstract:
Scholars and policymakers have argued that territorial revisionism is dangerous because it risks setting off a cascade of claims by states dissatisfied with their borders. This Pandora’s box logic suggests that states that are vulnerable to an unraveling of the status quo have incentives to restrain their territorial ambitions to preserve stability. This paper explores this claim theoretically and empirically. It provides descriptive evidence to determine whether vulnerability to territorial threats has historically been associated with a lower likelihood of initiating territorial disputes. We find some evidence of such an effect in postindependence Africa, where this logic is most frequently invoked, and to some extent in Asia, but not in other regions. To help explain these empirical observations, we develop a multistate model of territorial conflict that identifies the conditions under which cooperation to preserve the territorial status quo can be sustained. The model shows that while an equilibrium of mutual restraint can exist, the necessary conditions are quite restrictive, and this cooperative equilibrium is never unique. Thus while a Pandora’s box of potential claims can provide the basis for a norm of restraint, the emergence of such a norm is neither straightforward nor guaranteed.
Foreign interventions and community cohesion in times of conflict
Sarah Langlotz
Journal of Development Economics, forthcoming
Abstract:
The success of foreign interventions critically depends on cohesion within local communities, which serve as relevant partners in counterinsurgency and reconstruction efforts. Using unique data on military base locations and counterinsurgency aid in Afghanistan, I show that the presence of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) negatively affects social cohesion, measured by support within communities, engagement with community institutions, and trust. I leverage a geographic regression discontinuity design to estimate effects of ISAF’s geographic mandate enlargement, complemented by a panel analysis that covers its operational intensification. These findings do not appear to reflect crowding-out of informal institutions by formal provision; rather, they coincide with higher insecurity and reduced confidence in local institutions, offering a plausible explanation for the observed erosion of community cohesion. These findings carry important implications for foreign policy, particularly in settings where communities compensate for gaps in formal institutional provision.
The Martyrdom Effect in Judgment: Fatal Self-Sacrifice Boosts Evaluations for Both Beneficial and Harmful Actors
Christopher Olivola
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, April 2026
Abstract:
Consequentialist theories of judgment and choice hold that individuals and actions should be evaluated in terms of the outcomes they produce, but not on how they bring about (otherwise equivalent) outcomes. This paper demonstrates a striking violation of consequentialism in judgment when fatal martyrdom -- sacrificing one's life for a cause -- is introduced. Across six experiments (Ntotal = 4861), including one preregistered replication, US participants judged scenarios in which a protagonist takes actions to save members of his group from an attack. They evaluated the protagonist and his actions more positively when he (voluntarily) sacrificed his life in the process, compared with when he achieved the same goal without dying. This is despite the fact that the former scenario -- which adds self-sacrifice to an otherwise identical chain of events -- is clearly worse for the protagonist (and his fellow group members). Moreover, fatal martyrdom (self-sacrifice) boosted evaluations even when the protagonist belonged to a despised group and his actions produced harmful outcomes that served an aversive cause. These results show that people praise fatal martyrdom (self-sacrifice), regardless of its consequences, and regardless of whether they generally support or oppose the martyr and the martyr's cause. The experiments also examined several potential mechanisms and boundary conditions of this fatal martyrdom effect, and they show that the effect can occur even in the absence of human intergroup conflict.
Forecasting the use of force: A word embedding analysis of China’s rhetoric and military escalations
Jackie Wong
Political Science Research and Methods, forthcoming
Abstract:
Is an autocracy’s official rhetoric a reliable proxy for forecasting military escalation? While the conventional hands-tying mechanism argues that official rhetoric binds leaders to stated positions and limits their ability to back down, recent scholarship on bluster suggests that autocracies may employ hawkish rhetoric to justify de-escalation ex-post. This study evaluates these competing perspectives by analyzing China’s official rhetoric and military behavior in the Taiwan Strait from 2016 to 2022. Employing a word-embedding approach, I construct an original Chinese-language lexicon capturing implicit threats from over two million state-media articles. I show that increases in China’s implicit threats toward Taiwan are associated with a higher likelihood of military escalation, implying that official rhetoric conveys predictive information rather than mere cheap talk.
The TikTok Caliphate: How Jihadist Supporters Exploit Algorithmic Recommendations and Evade Content Moderation
Gilad Karo, Tom Divon & Blake Hallinan
Social Media + Society, February 2026
Abstract:
Jihadist organizations and their supporters have long used social media to spread propaganda, creating enduring content moderation challenges. Despite TikTok’s purported zero-tolerance approach to violent extremism, terrorist propaganda persists on the platform. This study investigates how supporters of ISIS and Al-Qaeda employ TikTok’s features to exploit algorithmic recommendations and evade content moderation, increasing their visibility within a hostile platform environment. We strategically enrolled the platform’s recommendation system to surface terrorist propaganda and inductively developed a typology of five communicative techniques: audio camouflage (manipulating recorded audio and metadata), meme infiltration (embedding extremist content within pop culture references), blurred intent (distorting sensitive visuals), emoji codes (using coded language and symbols), and bait-and-switch (deferring the reveal of extremist messaging). Together, these tactics constitute a form of everyday extremism embedded within TikTok’s vernacular practices, aesthetics, and pop culture references, exposing the limitations of TikTok’s moderation and state regulations. Our study underscores the need for improved governance, culturally informed moderation, and greater collaboration between platforms and governments to combat online radicalization and extremism.
Rethinking the Deterrence-Disarmament Dichotomy: The Complex Landscape of Global Nuclear Weapons Preferences
Lauren Sukin, Luis Rodriguez & Stephen Herzog
Perspectives on Politics, forthcoming
Abstract:
Backers of nuclear deterrence are thought to use strategic logic, while nuclear disarmament advocates are believed to embrace moral reasoning. Yet policy makers and diverse publics may hold both -- ostensibly contradictory -- preferences. Recent studies find that publics in Western democratic countries support the nuclear strikes underpinning long-standing conceptions of deterrence policy. But other scholarship indicates that these very same publics want to abolish nuclear arsenals. A lack of comparative analyses across the Global North and the Global South limits the generalizability of these claims. Does a categorical dichotomy between nuclear deterrence and disarmament really reflect global public views on the bomb? What explains a multitude of seemingly inconsistent scholarly results? In this reflection essay, we argue that deterrence and disarmament are not necessarily incompatible tools for reducing nuclear dangers. We point to several ways that individuals might simultaneously accommodate both pro- and antinuclear weapons policy positions. To investigate this proposition, we offer a new observational dataset on global nuclear attitudes from a survey we conducted in 24 countries on six continents (N = 27,250). Unlike isolated studies of these phenomena, our data strongly confirm that publics do not subscribe to categorical views of nuclear weapons. This headline finding and novel dataset open new possibilities for studying nuclear politics.
Does external threat bring the nation together? Evidence from the United States
Nicholas Sambanis & Amber Hye-Yon Lee
American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Do external security threats unify the nation in countries with high social polarization? War and other forms of interstate competition for power may increase the salience of national identity, but the effect may be weak if the nation is divided. Empirical evidence of a trade-off between national (superordinate) and subnational (subordinate) identification during times of crisis is sparse. We present an experimental framework to measure effects of external threat on national identification in the United States, exploring whether effects are driven by attachment to the nation (ingroup love), hostility toward other nations (outgroup hate), or both simultaneously. We find that even in a context of partisan polarization, external threat strengthens national identification, expressed mainly as increased hostility toward the national outgroup. National identification need not come at the expense of salient partisan identities as long as these are not perceived to be in competition with the national identity.
Armed Conflict and the Location of Extractive Foreign Direct Investment
Gyu Sang Shim
Journal of Conflict Resolution, forthcoming
Abstract:
Despite the link between resource wealth and conflict, some mining regions experience intense violence while others remain relatively peaceful. This paper argues that foreign ownership of mines restrains armed conflict near mining facilities. The potential for intervention by the home governments of foreign miners discourages rebel attacks. Using a staggered difference-in-differences design with georeferenced conflict and mining facility data from 1998 to 2010, the analysis shows a reduction in armed conflict following the entry of foreign miners. The military expenditure of the foreign miner’s home country further strengthens this restraining effect, highlighting the protective role of foreign ownership.