Are there significant domestic political costs for leaders who disengage from long-standing alliances, costs that discourage such disengagement? Leaders of major powers occasionally look for ways to disengage in non-crisis situations from some long-term commitments to other countries following the legal procedures laid out in the alliance treaty or commitment. However, leaders interested in disengagement from alliances sometimes fear that they will pay domestic disengagement costs, for example, a decline in domestic public support, if they try to withdraw from alliances in that manner in practice. To examine if such fears are justified, we conducted two survey experiments among representative samples of the US public investigating the effects of a presidential decision to end an alliance commitment through the legally prescribed means. We find that disengagement costs exist in general and that some characteristics of the country in question can increase their size and make them more long-lasting. For example, withdrawal from alliances with countries perceived as similar on some key criteria to the United States and as loyal allies, or widespread opposition by experts to this withdrawal, will all increase the size of the disengagement costs and make them more long-lasting. Leaving an existing alliance in peacetime will frequently be a politically losing proposition for American leaders in many plausible situations—one possible reason for the endurance of some US alliances.
BayramB (2017) Due deference: cosmopolitan social identity and the psychology of legal obligation in international politics. International Organization71(S1): S137–S163.
6.
BennettS (1997) Testing alternative models of alliance duration 1816-1997. American Journal of Political Science41(3): 846–977.
7.
BonikowskiaBDiMaggioP (2016) Varieties of American popular nationalism. American Sociological Review81(5): 949–980.
8.
BorstelmannT (2020) Just Like Us: The American Struggle to Understand Foreigners. New York: Columbia University Press.
9.
BrickerCLaCombeS (2021) The ties that bind us: the influence of perceived state similarity on policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly74: 377–387.
10.
BullockJ (2011) Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review105(3): 496–515.
11.
BurgerJMessianNPatelS, et al (2004) What a coincidence! The effects of incidental similarity on compliance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30: 35–43.
12.
ChaceJ (1998) Acheson. New York: Random House.
13.
ChaudoinS (2014) Promises or policies? An experimental analysis of international agreements and audience reactions. International Organization68(1): 235–256.
14.
ChiltonA (2014) The influence of international human rights agreements on public opinion: an experimental study. Chicago Journal of International Law15(1): 110–137.
15.
ChuJ (2021) Liberal ideology and foreign opinion on China. International Studies Quarterly65(4): 960–972.
16.
ChuJKoJLiuA (2021) Commanding support: values and interests in the rhetoric of alliance politics. International Interactions47(3): 477–503.
17.
CitrinJReingoldBGreenD (1990) American identity and the politics of ethnic change. The Journal of Politics52(4): 1124–1154.
DahlbackNWangQNassC, et al. (2007) Similarity is more important than expertise: Accent effects in speech interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, 28 April–3 May 2007, pp. 1553–1556. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
24.
DeBruineL (2005) Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London272: 919–922.
GartzkeEGleditschKS (2004) Why democracies may actually be less reliable allies. American Journal of Political Science48(4): 775–795.
31.
GaubatzKT (1996) Democratic states and commitments in international relations. International Organization50: 109–139.
32.
GavinF (2015) Strategies of inhibition: U.S. grand strategy, the nuclear revolution, and nonproliferation. International Security40(1): 9–46.
33.
GiblerDM (2008) The cost of reneging: reputation and alliance formation. Journal of Conflict Resolution52: 426–454.
34.
GolbyJFeaverPDroppK (2018) Elite military cues and public opinion about the use of military force. Armed Forces & Society44(1): 44–71.
35.
GouldnerA (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review25: 161–178.
36.
GriecoJGelpiCReiflerJ, et al (2011) Let’s get a second opinion: international institutions and American public support for war. International Studies Quarterly55(2): 563–583.
37.
GuisingerASaundersE (2017) Mapping the boundaries of Elite Cues: How Elites shape mass opinion aAcross International issues. International Studies Quarterly61: 425–441.
38.
HandelM (1981) Weak States in the International System. London: Frank Cass.
39.
HiscoxM (2006) Through a glass and darkly: attitudes toward international trade and the curious effects of issue framing. International Organization60(3): 755–780.
40.
HolstiO (2004) Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
JentlesonB (1992) The pretty prudent public: post-Vietnam American opinion on the use of military force. International Studies Quarterly36(1): 49–74.
46.
JespersenC (1994) Spreading the American dream of China: United China relief, the Luce family, and the creation of American conceptions of China before pearl harbor. Journal of American-East Asian Relations1(3): 269–294.
47.
JespersenC (1996) American Images of China 1931–1949. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
JiangLHoeggJDahlD, et al. (2010) The persuasive role of incidental similarity on attitudes and purchase intentions in a sales context. Journal of Consumer Research36(5): 778–791.
49.
KahnemanDKnetschJThalerR (1991) The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives5(1): 193–206.
50.
KeohaneR (1971) The big influence of small allies. Foreign Policy2: 161–182.
51.
KertzerJBrutgerR (2016) Decomposing audience costs: bringing the audience back into audience cost theory. American Journal of Political Science60(1): 234–249.
52.
KonoD (2007) Making anarchy work: international legal institutions and trade cooperation. The Journal of Politics69: 746–759.
53.
KrebsRJacksonPT (2007) Twisting tongues and twisting arms: the power of political rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations13(1): 33–66.
54.
LandauJHeperM (eds) (1991) Political Parties and Democracy in Turkey. New York: I.B. Taurus.
55.
LarsonE (1996) Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
56.
LawrenceC (2017) War by Numbers: Understanding Conventional Combat. Lincoln, NE: Potomac Books.
57.
LaunayJDunbarRIM (2015) Playing with strangers: Which shared traits attract us most to new people?PLoS ONE10(6): e0129688.
58.
LeedsBA (2003) Alliance reliability in times of war: explaining state decisions to violate treaties. International Organization57: 801–827.
59.
LeedsBASavunB (2007) Terminating alliances: why do states abrogate agreements?The Journal of Politics69(4): 1118–1132.
60.
LevenduskyMHorowitzM (2012) Backing down is the right decision: partisanship, new information and audience costs. The Journal of Politics74(2): 323–338.
61.
LevinDHTragerR (2019) Things you can see from there you can’t see from here: Blind spots in the American perspective in IR and their effects. Journal of Global Security Studies4(3): 345–357.
62.
LevyJMcKoyMPoastP, et al (2015) Backing out or backing in? Commitment and consistency in audience costs theory. American Journal of Political Science59(4): 988–1001.
63.
LevyY (2010) The tradeoff between force and casualties Israel’s Wars in Gaza, 1987–2009. Conflict Management and Peace Science27(4): 386–405.
64.
LipsonC (1991) Why are some international agreements informal?International Organization45(4): 495–538.
LongJ (1972) Russian manipulation of the French press, 1904-1906. Slavic Review31(2): 343–354.
67.
MearsheimerJ (1990) Back to the future: instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security15(1): 5–56.
68.
MillerDDownsJPrenticeD (1998) Minimal conditions for the creation of a unit relationship: The social bond between birthdaymates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3): 475–481.
69.
MuellerJ (1973) War, Presidents and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.
70.
ParkJSchallerM (2005) Does attitude similarity serve as a heuristic cue for kinship? Evidence of an implicit cognitive association. Evolution and Human Behavior26: 158–170.
71.
ParkJAckermanJ (2011) Passion and compassion: Psychology of kin relations within and beyond the family. In SalmonCShackelfordT (eds) Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Family Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.329−344.
72.
QuekK (2017) Type II audience costs. The Journal of Politics79(4): 1438–1443.
73.
QuekKJohnstonAI (2018) Can China back down? Crisis deescalation in the shadow of popular opposition. International Security42(3): 7–36.
74.
Rapp-HooperM (2020) Shields of the Republic: The Triumph and Peril of America’s Alliances. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
75.
RynholdJ (2015) The Arab-Israeli Conflict in American Political Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
76.
SamuelsonWZeckhauserR (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty1: 7–59.
SpindelJ (2019) How not to win friends and influence people: reverse leverage in arms sales. In: International Studies Association conference, 28 March, Toronto, ON, Canada.
88.
TagoA (2009) When are democratic friends unreliable? The unilateral withdrawal of troops from the “coalition of the willing.”Journal of Peace Research46(2): 219–234.
TsalikisJDeShieldsOLaTourM (1991) The role of accent on the credibility and effectiveness of the salesperson. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management11(1): 31–41.
96.
TuckerN (1986) Patterns in the Dust: Chinese-American Relations and the Recognition Controversy 1949-1950. New York: Columbia University Press.
97.
Von SteinJ (2015) Making promises, keeping promises: democracy, ratification, and compliance in international human rights law. British Journal of Political Science46(3): 655–679.
WallaceG (2013) International law and public attitudes toward torture: an experimental study. International Organization67: 105–140.
100.
WaltzK (1993) The emerging structure of international politics. International Security18(2): 44–79.
101.
WeisigerA (2016) Exiting the coalition: when do states abandon coalition partners during war?International Studies Quarterly60: 753–765.
102.
WeissJCDafoeA (2019) Authoritarian audiences, rhetoric, and propaganda in international crises: evidence from China. International Studies Quarterly63(4): 963–973.
103.
WestadO (2005) The Global Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
