Research

Authors: Rikio Inouye, Yusaku Horiuchi, Eun A Jo, and Kelly Matush, 

Abstract:

Does democratic backsliding shape foreign publics' preferences for security cooperation with a partner state? We examine this question through two multinational survey experiments with nearly 10,000 respondents across six countries, focusing on intelligence sharing-a form of security cooperation that is often deeply institutionalized and thus relies heavily on trust. In our first experiment across the United States' Five Eyes intelligence partners, information about democratic backsliding in both a hypothetical partner and the U.S. consistently reduces support for intelligence sharing. A follow-up study in the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and South Korea indicates that the backsliding penalty extends beyond the Five Eyes context. We also show that backsliding generates a substantially larger penalty than economic downturn, suggesting that our result is not reducible to a negative-information prime. These findings show that domestic political deterioration can erode the public foundations of international collaboration, with implications for security cooperation and alliance cohesion.

Abstract source: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5610710

Authors: Rikio Inouye and Yusaku Horiuchi

Abstract:

Conflicts manifest on two fronts: the battlefield and global public opinion. This study explores how ordinary individuals form sympathies toward those involved in conflicts abroad, focusing on American public opinion about the Gaza conflict that began in 2023. Based on two conjoint experiments—one fielded the day after Israel’s 2023 ground invasion of Gaza and another conducted in May 2025—we find that Americans selectively pay attention to substantive aspects of the conflict and consistently evaluate their preferred side favorably. The belligerents’ religion emerges as the dominant factor shaping respondents’ sympathy, while respondents remain largely unmoved by the concerns emphasized by the opposing side. We find minimal differences across respondents’ partisanship and religion, though racial divides in conflict perception persist. Sympathy toward one group is also associated with resentment toward the other group. Consequently, while people profess their sympathy is rooted in universal sentiments about suffering, its expression is filtered through prior beliefs and motivated reasoning. This finding underscores the psychological and political challenges that pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian partisans face in understanding each other's perspectives.

Abstract source: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqag027

[replication package]

Authors: Rikio Inouye

Abstract:

Lead states compete for influence and followers, and the COVID-19 pandemic served as an important reminder that health aid can be a foreign policy tool. How and to which countries do states distribute aid amidst a global crisis and great power rivalry? This article integrates multiple literatures and presents a novel typology of strategies: preserving existing partnerships, pressuring opponents, protecting recipients based on need, and peeling off countries from geopolitical rivals. It analyzes how the US and China distributed life-saving COVID-19 vaccines through 2021-2022. Regression results and Bayesian reasoning of original elite interviews suggest the US approach is characterized by protecting and peeling, while patterns of Chinese distribution suggest a combination of pressuring, preserving, and protecting. Case studies of Paraguay and Nicaragua – historic allies of Taiwan - further support these conclusions. This raises questions regarding the circumstances under which aid provision is instrumental and how rivals compete during global crises.

Abstract source: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqag005

[replication package]

Authors: Rikio Inouye

Abstract:

How does the race of those suffering alter Americans’ sympathy and support for invaded countries? Moving beyond the traditional White-Black binary, this research examines how the intertwined domestic and international racialization for both Asians and Arabs creates penalties in support. Late Cold War survey data provides suggestive evidence, but to establish causality, I use AI-generated images to manipulate the race of a hypothetical invaded country. White Americans are less supportive toward Arab and Asian majority countries, though majority Black countries were not penalized. Importantly, race biases evaluations of material capabilities. Then, to analyze invader and invaded identities, I field a paired-profile conjoint experiment, finding respondents support invaded countries in general, but the cross-pull of outgroup racial or religious identity weakens and even eliminates the support for victims. Race can bias support, but also condition how people react to aggressive behavior. Identity cannot be easily separated from strategic or material considerations.

Abstract source: 10.33774/apsa-2026-bkpx6-v2

Authors: Rikio Inouye and Christopher Blair

Abstract:

Many of the largest refugee crises occur in the wake of military withdrawals. How does a refugee’s experience working alongside host military forces abroad shape support for resettlement? We argue that natives are more supportive of migrants with prior experience serving alongside host country troops. Favorability toward allied refugees is motivated by retrospective reciprocity, a bundle of considerations related to moral obligation, shared values, and commitments to strategic partners. We test this theory using six survey experiments on mass and elite samples, focusing on perceptions of migrants from Afghanistan,  Iraq, and Vietnam. We find overwhelming evidence that prior experience working with host-nation forces increases support for resettling allied migrants. The effects of prior service are motivated by beliefs that these migrants are owed support and share defining civic values. Qualitative insights from interviews bolster our argument. Cooperation abroad can reduce anti-migrant prejudice at home, transforming allies into neighbors.

Keywords: refugee resettlement, Military allies, Public opinion, Retrospective reciprocity, Afghan allies, prejudice reduction, survey experiment, elite survey, migration, special immigrant visa, veterans, Muslims, United States, America, Vietnam, Iraq, retrospective reciprocity

Abstract source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5186927

Authors: Rikio Inouye, Yusaku Horiuchi
Abstract: 

How do democratic publics choose sides in foreign conflicts? We argue that they rely on identity heuristics, assess each side's relative in-groupness, and support the side they perceive as closer. Regime type is an especially salient cue, producing what we call democratic solidarity: citizens prefer to support fellow democracies over nondemocracies. Three side-selection conjoint experiments in the U.S. and the U.K. provide support for such solidarity even when costless neutrality is an option. Two additional vignette experiments suggest that democratic solidarity extends to substantive policy preferences. However, respondents evaluate in-groupness across multiple identity dimensions: democratic solidarity can be reinforced or attenuated by religious and, to a lesser extent, racial identities. Support for democracies disappears in conflicts between Christian nondemocracies and non-Christian democracies, and co-racial affinities polarize support. Overall, democratic solidarity is powerful but conditional, underscoring how identities can reinforce or cross-cut foreign policy preferences.

Keywords: Keywords: democratic peace, race, religion, solidarity, conjoint analysis, conflict, democratic solidarity, support, tradeoff, identity, in-group

Abstract source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5226460

Authors: Rikio Inouye, Soohyun Cho, and Simone Dietrich
Abstract: 

This paper examines how the racial and gender composition of donor leadership shapes public opinion in recipient countries. Focusing on South Africa, we explore whether the inclusion of women and Black individuals in U.S. foreign aid leadership influences perceptions of aid programs. Given the legacy of neocolonialism in foreign assistance, we argue that such non-traditional leadership signals a break from paternalistic models, enhancing perceived alignment with recipient needs. Using a two-wave survey experiment conducted in South Africa in 2024, we manipulate the race and gender composition of U.S. aid leaders. We find that both descriptive representation and greater inclusion of marginalized groups improve favorability toward U.S. leadership, especially among women and Black respondents. However, the effects weaken among individuals with sexist attitudes. Our findings highlight how non-traditional leadership can enhance perceived responsiveness, contributing to broader debates on aid effectiveness, international legitimacy, and the intersectional politics of foreign policy institutions.

Keywords: Foreign aid, Diversity, Identity, Race, Gender, South Africa, Experimental analysis

Abstract source: 10.33774/apsa-2025-l5m9m-v4

Authors: Rikio Inouye, Yusaku Horiuchi, Eun A Jo, and Kelly Matush, 

Abstract:

Does the democratic process at home shape allied public support for war? Bypassing domestic democratic authorization can raise concerns about transparency, accountability, restraint, and commitment to democratic norms. We argue that these concerns reduce support for the operation. We test this argument in the context of the 2026 US-Iran war using a survey experiment in Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. Respondents in the main treatment condition were told that the US president initiated strikes without congressional debate or approval and that some experts considered the action unconstitutional and evidence of democratic erosion. The treatment reduced support for the strikes and for respondents' government endorsing them. Exploratory evidence indicates that a parallel expert frame that the same absence of congressional approval was constitutional did not significantly increase support. These findings suggest that backsliding into war undermines alliances from below, weakening allied public support needed for sustained military cooperation. 

Abstract source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7129299
Keywords: Democratic Backsliding, Support for War, Use of Force, Public Opinion, Security Cooperation, Alliances, Us-Iran War, United States, Iran

Authors: Rikio Inouye, Zoltán I. Búzás 

Abstract:

Throughout the first and second Trump administrations, US foreign policy and rhetoric has been colored by racial and civilizational rhetoric.  Concerns of supposed Western civilizational decline exist alongside frozen refugee admissions, cuts to foreign aid, and a global anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (anti-DEI) campaign. Existing explanations are unable to account for these patterns nor is there any systematic evidence regarding the impact of such policies on foreign public attitudes.  To shed light on the racial dimensions of U.S. foreign policy, we introduce the concept of “white protectionism” to International Relations (IR) and analyze how white protectionist grand strategy alters public opinion in allied countries. White protectionism asserts that white people are threatened by racial-cultural erasure and anti-White  discrimination, and enlists state power to protect them. We propose survey experiments in Japan and the United Kingdom and report results from the UK pilot that show how white protectionism alters attitudes toward the ally, preferences for foreign policy cooperation, and support for racial equality norms. Our work promises to shed light on the unique relationship between statements of US grand strategy, foreign public opinion, and racial norms and identities.

Abstract source: working paper