THE STATEMENT.

Why would a government condemn abuse in another country if the criticism does not stop it? Bassan-Nygate examines a possible benefit at home. Naming and shaming means publicly identifying alleged wrongdoing and urging change. Citizens may take that criticism as a sign that their own government values rights. The proposed process runs from a public statement to an impression of the speaker, and then to approval of its response.

There is another plausible explanation for approval: citizens may believe the criticism helped victims. To separate these explanations, the study tells every participant that the foreign government's abuses continue. The researchers can then ask whether speaking out changes judgments even when the account contains no improvement abroad.

How the researchers studied it

In March and June 2022, the researcher surveyed 1,200 and 3,000 attentive US respondents through Lucid. Respondents were recruited to resemble the population in sex, age, race, and region; this does not give every American the same chance of selection. Chance determined which version of a hypothetical incident each person read. One mentioned US condemnation at the UN; the other did not. Both said that foreign abuses continued. The second experiment also varied whether the foreign country was a US ally.

Participants then rated how the US government handled the situation, how much it valued and respected rights, and their own support for or opposition to torture in the US. Because chance assigned the messages, the groups should tend to be similar before reading them. Comparing their answers helps estimate a message effect. The approval question concerned this incident, rather than overall government popularity or voting.

What they found

People who learned about condemnation gave higher approval to the US government's handling of the incident and judged it more favorably on respect for rights. Since continued abuse appeared in both accounts, this domestic benefit did not depend on learning that the foreign government had improved. The result helps explain why leaders might gain credit for speaking out before they secure a change abroad.

The evidence for reduced opposition to torture was smaller and depended on circumstances. The author discusses moral licensing: a favorable moral impression can make people more willing to excuse other troubling conduct. That is a proposed explanation of an attitude pattern, rather than proof that condemnation causes actual abuse.

Where the claim stops

The experiment identifies a message effect, but does not establish every step in the proposed process. Perceptions of morality were measured, not assigned by chance, so they do not by themselves prove why approval changed. Nor do these answers establish leaders' motives, improved rights practices, or how people would respond to a real dispute. A controlled account gives everyone clear information; real audiences may encounter conflicting reports or never hear the statement.

Source guide: research design, experiments 1–2, and conclusion. Published article pp. 1–19.

When a government is accused of breaking international law, other governments still have to decide whether to respond. Morse and Pratt ask how the accused government's words shape the citizens and officials who might support punishment. A punitive policy is a response intended to impose costs, such as economic restrictions or exclusion from an international body.

The authors distinguish three arguments. A denial disputes an event or responsibility: 'We did not do it.' A validity challenge rejects the rule: 'This rule should no longer govern.' An applicability claim accepts conduct but argues for an exception: 'The usual rule should not apply in these circumstances.' These are our brief illustrations, not quotations from the researchers. They matter because an audience can doubt responsibility, reject a rule, or excuse a case for different reasons.

The proposed process involves certainty and outrage. A denial may make people less sure who is responsible; an exception claim may make acknowledged conduct seem less objectionable. Either response could reduce support for punishment. A competing possibility is that an international organization can answer the argument and restore support for a response.

How the researchers studied it

The main public experiment surveyed approximately 2,800 US respondents in September 2024. A separate study in November–December 2024 included 285 foreign-policy officials recruited through LinkedIn. Respondents read about an unnamed country accused of military aggression or arbitrary detention. Chance determined whether it gave no comment, denied responsibility, challenged the rule, or claimed an exception. Some respondents then received a UN reply addressing that argument.

Respondents said how strongly they supported responses such as diplomatic criticism, economic penalties, exclusion from an international institution, and material support for victimized parties. The researchers compared those answers across messages. The public sample was recruited to resemble US population characteristics. The officials were people who agreed to participate: the response rate was about 2%, 56% were US respondents, and the sample does not represent officials worldwide.

What they found

Denials and exception claims reduced US respondents' support for punishment compared with no comment. The estimate for attacking the rule was too uncertain to establish the same reduction. The officials' answers showed a broadly similar pattern, with less certain evidence for denial. The result suggests that governments can defend themselves without persuading audiences to abandon the general rule.

In these experiments, UN factual replies neutralized the reduction associated with denial. Replies to exception claims increased support for punishment but did not fully remove the reduction. Establishing who acted may resolve a factual dispute more readily than saying that the acknowledged act lacks justification. The study shows this difference in responses; it does not conclusively identify why it occurred.

Where the claim stops

The starting accusations contained uncertainty. These findings therefore do not show that words defeat conclusive evidence in every dispute. They also concern support for policies, rather than policies adopted or abuses stopped. Finally, persuasion is not a test of truth or legal justification: a reply can lower support for punishment while leaving its factual basis or claimed exception unresolved.

Source guide: theory, public and elite experimental results, and conclusion. Free manuscript pp. 22–26 explain the design; pp. 27–35 report results. Its appendix supplies further detail.