Goldsmith, Horiuchi, Matush Flashcards
What is the main research question of the Goldsmith, Horiuchi, and Matush (2021) study?
Whether public diplomacy—specifically high-level visits by national leaders—can shape foreign public opinion.
What type of public diplomacy does the paper study?
High-level visits by national leaders to other countries.
What is soft power?
The ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce, using positive perceptions and cultural appeal.
How does this study relate to soft power?
It investigates whether high-level visits create soft-power resources by improving a country’s image abroad.
What is the study’s research design?
A natural experiment using Gallup World Poll data to compare respondents surveyed just before vs. just after 86 high-level visits in 38 countries.
What question did the study use to measure public opinion?
“Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of [country]?”
What makes the study’s design strong in terms of internal validity?
By comparing respondents just before and after the visit, it isolates the causal impact of the visit on public opinion.
How many respondents were used in the main analysis?
32,456 respondents within a 5-day window before and after each visit.
By how much does approval increase after a visit?
By an average of 2.3 percentage points. it equals 41% of the average annual change in approval, showing it’s a substantial effect.
What happens to disapproval after a visit?
It decreases by 1.4 percentage points, which is statistically significant.
How long did the increase in approval last?
Up to 20 days after the visit.
What happened to the “neither approve nor disapprove” group?
It decreased by 0.9 percentage points. —suggesting people form clearer opinions.
What enhanced the effect of a visit?
Media coverage of public-diplomacy activities.
Do more powerful countries (militarily) have greater public diplomacy impact?
Only in cases of extreme imbalance; generally, power differences didn’t matter much.
What role does media coverage play in public diplomacy?
It amplifies the positive effects of high-level visits on foreign public opinion.
Did removing cases with economic/military deals or threats change the results?
No, the core findings remained robust.
Did host leaders benefit from visiting leaders’ popularity?
No evidence was found that host leaders’ approval increased due to a visit.
What is the key finding of the study?
High-level visits by national leaders significantly increase approval of the visiting leader among foreign publics.
How long does the reduction in disapproval last?
It is shorter-lived compared to the approval increase.
Do powerful countries ( hard power) have an advantage in public diplomacy?
Not really—only extreme power imbalances (e.g., U.S. vs. Rwanda) showed stronger effects.
