Publications of Rachel Myrick
%% Journal Articles
@article{fds370876,
Author = {Myrick, R},
Title = {Public Reactions to Secret Negotiations in International
Politics},
Journal = {Journal of Conflict Resolution},
Volume = {68},
Number = {4},
Pages = {703-729},
Publisher = {SAGE Publications},
Year = {2024},
Month = {April},
Abstract = {Many international agreements, from routine trade deals to
high-stakes nuclear agreements, are negotiated in secret.
However, we have a limited understanding of how secrecy in a
negotiation shapes attitudes towards the agreement. Public
opinion matters because it informs government decisions
about when to conceal or reveal information during a
negotiation. In a survey experiment of U.S. adults, I first
examine overall attitudes towards secrecy in security and
economic agreements. I then randomize government
justifications for negotiating in secret: improved success,
protection of sensitive information, and anticipation of
criticism from domestic and international opponents. I find
that respondents are generally averse to secrecy in
international negotiations, but there are justifications for
its use that they perceive as more legitimate. Secrecy is
more permissible when negotiations contain sensitive
information or when it improves the likelihood that
agreements are reached. It is less permissible when
governments negotiate in secret to avoid domestic
criticism.},
Doi = {10.1177/00220027231177592},
Key = {fds370876}
}
@article{fds372292,
Author = {Myrick, R and Wang, C},
Title = {Domestic Polarization and International Rivalry: How
Adversaries Respond to America’s Partisan
Politics},
Journal = {Journal of Politics},
Volume = {86},
Number = {1},
Pages = {141-157},
Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
Year = {2024},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {How do foreign rivals perceive and respond to heightened
domestic polarization in the United States? The conventional
thinking is that polarization weakens and distracts the
United States, emboldening its adversaries. However,
untested assumptions underlie this claim. We use two
strategies to explore mechanisms linking domestic
polarization and international rivalry. First, we field a
survey experiment in China to examine how heightening
perceptions of US polarization affects public attitudes
toward Chinese foreign policy. Second, we investigate how US
rival governments responded to an episode of extreme
partisanship: the US Capitol attacks on January 6, 2021.
Drawing on Integrated Crisis Early Warning System event
data, we explore whether foreign rivals increased hostility
toward the United States following the Capitol riots. Both
studies fail to show robust evidence for the Emboldening
Hypothesis. Extreme polarization has other negative
consequences for American foreign policy, but we find no
evidence that it makes adversaries materially more assertive
toward the United States.},
Doi = {10.1086/726926},
Key = {fds372292}
}
@article{fds370623,
Author = {Myrick, R},
Title = {Searching For Progressive Foreign Policy in Theory and in
Practice},
Journal = {Security Studies},
Volume = {32},
Number = {2},
Pages = {389-395},
Publisher = {Informa UK Limited},
Year = {2023},
Month = {January},
Doi = {10.1080/09636412.2023.2200972},
Key = {fds370623}
}
@article{fds362395,
Author = {Myrick, R},
Title = {The reputational consequences of polarization for American
foreign policy: evidence from the US-UK bilateral
relationship},
Journal = {International Politics},
Volume = {59},
Number = {5},
Pages = {1004-1027},
Year = {2022},
Month = {October},
Abstract = {How does partisan polarization in the United States affect
foreign perceptions of its security commitments and global
leadership? In a survey experiment fielded to 2000 adults in
the United Kingdom, I demonstrate that priming respondents
to think about US polarization negatively impacts their
evaluations of the US-UK bilateral relationship. These
impacts are stronger for the long-term, reputational
consequences of polarization than for immediate security
concerns. While foreign allies do not expect the United
States to renege on existing security commitments,
perceptions of extreme polarization make them less willing
to engage in future partnerships with the United States and
more skeptical of its global leadership. I find that these
negative reputational consequences of polarization are
driven by perceptions of preference-based, ideological
polarization rather than identity-based, affective
polarization. The results suggest that American allies
anticipate that increasing divergence between the Republican
and Democratic Party will create future uncertainty around
US foreign policy.},
Doi = {10.1057/s41311-022-00382-z},
Key = {fds362395}
}
@article{fds359936,
Author = {Myrick, R and Weinstein, JM},
Title = {Making Sense of Human Rights Diplomacy: Evidence from a US
Campaign to Free Political Prisoners},
Journal = {International Organization},
Volume = {76},
Number = {2},
Pages = {379-413},
Year = {2022},
Month = {June},
Abstract = {Scholarship on human rights diplomacy (HRD)-efforts by
government officials to engage publicly and privately with
their foreign counterparts-often focuses on actions taken to
name and shame target countries because private diplomatic
activities are unobservable. To understand how HRD works in
practice, we explore a campaign coordinated by the US
government to free twenty female political prisoners. We
compare release rates of the featured women to two
comparable groups: A longer list of women considered by the
State Department for the campaign; and other women
imprisoned simultaneously in countries targeted by the
campaign. Both approaches suggest that the campaign was
highly effective. We consider two possible mechanisms
through which expressive public HRD works: by imposing
reputational costs and by mobilizing foreign actors.
However, in-depth interviews with US officials and an
analysis of media coverage find little evidence of these
mechanisms. Instead, we argue that public pressure resolved
deadlock within the foreign policy bureaucracy, enabling
private diplomacy and specific inducements to secure the
release of political prisoners. Entrepreneurial bureaucrats
leveraged the spotlight on human rights abuses to overcome
competing equities that prevent government-led coercive
diplomacy on these issues. Our research highlights the
importance of understanding the intersection of public and
private diplomacy before drawing inferences about the
effectiveness of HRD.},
Doi = {10.1017/S0020818321000424},
Key = {fds359936}
}
@article{fds361229,
Author = {Jee, H and Lueders, H and Myrick, R},
Title = {Towards a unified approach to research on democratic
backsliding},
Journal = {Democratization},
Volume = {29},
Number = {4},
Pages = {754-767},
Year = {2022},
Month = {January},
Abstract = {A growing literature examines democratic backsliding, but
there is little consensus on when, where, and why it occurs.
Reviewing more than 100 recent articles and working papers,
this research note argues that inattention to the
measurement of backsliding and the underlying concept of
democracy drives this disagreement. We propose three
remedies. First, we outline several questions that help
researchers navigate common measurement challenges. Second,
we argue that conceptual confusion around backsliding is
driven in large part by inconsistent definitions of
democracy. We show how outlining a comprehensive concept of
democracy enables researchers to better account for the
diversity of instances of democratic backsliding. Our third
contribution is drawing attention to a previously overlooked
form of backsliding: when governments lose the effective
power to govern or voters and elites increasingly disagree
about truths and facts. The research note urges scholars to
pay closer attention to the conceptualization and
measurement of backsliding prior to empirical
analysis.},
Doi = {10.1080/13510347.2021.2010709},
Key = {fds361229}
}
@article{fds356009,
Author = {Myrick, R},
Title = {Do External Threats Unite or Divide? Security Crises,
Rivalries, and Polarization in American Foreign
Policy},
Journal = {International Organization},
Volume = {75},
Number = {4},
Pages = {921-958},
Year = {2021},
Month = {August},
Abstract = {A common explanation for the increasing polarization in
contemporary American foreign policy is the absence of
external threat. I identify two mechanisms through which
threats could reduce polarization: by revealing information
about an adversary that elicits a bipartisan response from
policymakers (information mechanism) and by heightening the
salience of national relative to partisan identity (identity
mechanism). To evaluate the information mechanism, study 1
uses computational text analysis of congressional speeches
to explore whether security threats reduce partisanship in
attitudes toward foreign adversaries. To evaluate the
identity mechanism, study 2 uses public opinion polls to
assess whether threats reduce affective polarization among
the public. Study 3 tests both mechanisms in a survey
experiment that heightens a security threat from China. I
find that the external threat hypothesis has limited ability
to explain either polarization in US foreign policy or
affective polarization among the American public. Instead,
responses to external threats reflect the domestic political
environment in which they are introduced. The findings cast
doubt on predictions that new foreign threats will
inherently create partisan unity.},
Doi = {10.1017/S0020818321000175},
Key = {fds356009}
}
@article{fds357319,
Author = {Myrick, R},
Title = {Reflections on Using Annotation for Transparent Inquiry in
Mixed-Methods Research},
Journal = {PS - Political Science and Politics},
Volume = {54},
Number = {3},
Pages = {492-495},
Publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)},
Year = {2021},
Month = {July},
Doi = {10.1017/S1049096521000214},
Key = {fds357319}
}
@article{fds355514,
Author = {Reid, L and Myrick, R and Kadera, KM and Crescenzi,
MJC},
Title = {Conflict Environments and Civil War Onset},
Journal = {Journal of Global Security Studies},
Volume = {6},
Number = {2},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {2021},
Month = {March},
Abstract = {<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>The spread of
civil war poses serious risks and costs. We argue that
conflict environments, which vary across time and space,
systematically exacerbate the spread of civil war. As
conflict in a state’s neighborhood becomes more spatially
proximate and as lingering effects of conflict accumulate
over time, that state’s risk of civil war onset increases.
To theorize and test this argument, we construct the
conflict environment (CE) score, a concept that taps into
spatial and temporal dimensions of violence in a state’s
neighborhood. Using the CE score in established empirical
models of civil war onset, we demonstrate that a dangerous
conflict environment consistently elevates the risk of civil
war, outperforming traditional measures of nearby violence,
even when domestic factors are taken into
account.</jats:p>},
Doi = {10.1093/jogss/ogz064},
Key = {fds355514}
}
@article{fds352224,
Author = {ALRABABA'H, A and MYRICK, R and WEBB, I},
Title = {Do donor motives matter? investigating perceptions of
foreign aid in the conflict in donbas},
Journal = {International Studies Quarterly},
Volume = {64},
Number = {3},
Pages = {748-757},
Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)},
Year = {2020},
Month = {September},
Abstract = {How do the perceived motives of donor states shape recipient
attitudes toward foreign aid in a conflict zone? This
research note evaluates the impact of two frames that
characterize the motives of foreign powers involved in a
civil conflict in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
These frames portray foreign actors as providing aid either
to alleviate suffering during conflict (humanitarian frame)
or to increase their power and influence in the recipient
country (political influence frame). We demonstrate how
framing impacts attitudes toward foreign assistance from the
European Union and the Russian government among potential
aid recipients in the Donbas. The results show that frames
impact support for foreign aid from the European Union but
have no effect on views of Russian aid. Counter to
conventional expectations, aid provided for geopolitical,
strategic reasons may be viewed as a positive, stabilizing
force-even more than foreign aid provided for humanitarian
reasons.},
Doi = {10.1093/isq/sqaa026},
Key = {fds352224}
}
@article{fds350414,
Author = {Myrick, R},
Title = {Why So Secretive? Unpacking Public Attitudes toward Secrecy
and Success in US Foreign Policy},
Journal = {The Journal of Politics},
Volume = {82},
Number = {3},
Pages = {828-843},
Publisher = {University of Chicago Press},
Year = {2020},
Month = {July},
Doi = {10.1086/707308},
Key = {fds350414}
}