Split signals of credibility: the impact of regime type and polarization on audience costs

buir.advisorTokdemir, İhsan Efe
dc.contributor.authorÖzdemir, Ömer Deniz
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-23T06:51:56Z
dc.date.available2025-09-23T06:51:56Z
dc.date.copyright2025-09
dc.date.issued2025-09
dc.date.submitted2025-09-19
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of article.
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 123-143).
dc.description.abstractInternational threats vary: some deter, others provoke, with consequences for escalation, bargaining leverage, and leaders’ survival. Audience-cost research links credibility to domestic punishment yet typically collapses regime diversity into a democracy–autocracy binary and sidelines polarization. This thesis addresses both gaps by comparing democracies, anocracies, and autocracies and testing how affective polarization reshapes credibility within each. Theory: regime type sets a baseline for audience costs—high in democracies, low in autocracies, and intermediate in anocracies—while polarization diffuses punishability in democracies (weakening credibility), concentrates it in anocracies (strengthening credibility), and leaves autocracies largely unchanged due to insulation. Design merges MID with COW covariates and V-Dem regime and polarization measures to build a dyadic panel of 1,491 dyad–years (1816–2014) with standard controls (capabilities, contiguity, alliances, trade, GDP, target regime). Logistic regressions evaluate whether targets reciprocate (low perceived credibility) or comply (high perceived credibility) as a proxy for audience-cost likelihood; hypotheses address baseline regime differences and polarization’s moderating effect within regime families. Results in the main models are statistically significant: democracies display higher inferred audience-cost potential than autocracies, anocracies fall between; polarization erodes credibility in democracies, amplifies it in anocracies, and shows no systematic effect in autocracies. Scope conditions include proxy measurement of audience costs, regime coding choices, and polarization indices; these constraints qualify but do not undermine the contribution linking domestic punishability to international threat credibility. Definitions, coding thresholds, and data limitations are stated to maintain transparency and interpretive caution across cases and time.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Ömer Deniz Özdemir
dc.format.extentxiii, 144 leaves : color illustrations, charts ; 30 cm.
dc.identifier.itemidB163287
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11693/117564
dc.language.isoEnglish
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectDomestic audience costs
dc.subjectRegime type
dc.subjectPolarization
dc.subjectCrisis bargaining
dc.subjectThreat credibility
dc.titleSplit signals of credibility: the impact of regime type and polarization on audience costs
dc.title.alternativeGüvenirliğin bölünmüş sinyalleri: rejim türü ve kutuplaşmanın izleyici maliyeti üzerine etkisi
dc.typeThesis
thesis.degree.disciplineInternational Relations
thesis.degree.grantorBilkent University
thesis.degree.levelMaster's
thesis.degree.nameMA (Master of Arts)

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
B163287.pdf
Size:
1.04 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.1 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: