Cited by 91International Relations and Foreign PolicyElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Science Research and Education

Do external threats unite or divide? Security crises, rivalries, and polarization in American foreign policy

Myrick, Rachel·2021·International Organization

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0020818321000175

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Myrick (2021) finds little evidence for either mechanism, showing instead that responses become politicized contingent on the polarizing conditions in the country.

    “That said, Myrick (2021) finds little evidence for either mechanism, showing instead that responses become politicized contingent on the polarizing conditions in the country.”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Myrick (2021)

  • Other recent work is unable to find common ground between parties to reduce affective polarization.

    “other recent work is unable to find common ground between parties to reduce affective polarization (e.g., Klar, 2018;Levendusky, 2018b;Myrick, 2021;Wojcieszak & Warner, 2020).”

    From Measuring affective polarization: Matching concepts to measures (2026) · cites this paper as Myrick, 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myrick, R.
Corresponding author
Myrick, Rachel
Venue
International Organization
Published
2021
Volume
75
Issue
4
Pages
921-958
ISSN
  • 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5088
OpenAlex
W3153959403
Cited by
91
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3
FWCI
42.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Organization (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
Keywords
external threats, affective polarization, US foreign policy, partisan polarization, security crisis, rivalry, information mechanisms, congressional speeches, public opinion, China threat, partisan identity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review