Manipulating Public Beliefs about Alliance Compliance: A Survey Experiment.

This article examines how political elites can influence public opinion about compliance with international alliance treaties, specifically whether an action constitutes a treaty violation requiring military intervention. Challenging the assumption that the public has clear, fixed beliefs about treaty obligations, the authors argue that vague and flexible treaty language allows leaders to shape public understanding through elite signaling. Two survey experiments with American adults demonstrate that unified messages from the president and opposition leaders asserting that an alliance does not legally require troop deployment significantly reduce public support for military intervention, with legal/compliance arguments proving more persuasive than national interest justifications. The findings suggest that while alliances increase public support for defending allies, elected leaders have some leeway to limit intervention without incurring strong domestic audience costs, especially when elite consensus exists, highlighting the nuanced role of domestic politics in alliance compliance.