Whose critique matters? The effects of critic identity and audience on public opinion

The forthcoming article “Whose critique matters? The effects of critic identity and audience on public opinion” by Yehonatan Abramson, Anil Menon, and Abir Gitlin is summarized by the author(s) below.

Diaspora communities – overseas citizens or co-nationals abroad – have become increasingly active in criticizing their “homeland” (or country of origin). Eritreans abroad rallied in Geneva protesting against human rights violations in Eritrea; some segments within the Indian diaspora have voiced criticism over changes to India’s citizenship law; the 2022 invasion of Russia into Ukraine triggered protests among Russians abroad in solidarity with Ukraine; and several Jewish-American groups criticize Israel for its policies in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. 

One of the goals of these “naming and shaming” campaigns is influencing public opinion in the criticized country. But under what conditions can critical statements influence the public opinion on human rights issues within the country being criticized? Can criticism from diaspora members be more effective at moving domestic public opinion than criticisms from resident citizens or non-diasporic foreigners? Does it matter whether the criticism is delivered in front of an international or domestic audience?  

We examine these questions using a pre-registered survey experiment in Israel. We exposed Jewish-Israelis’ to criticism from either an Israeli, Jewish-American, or American speaking to either an Israeli-domestic or international audience. We then measured how the identity of the critic (Israeli, Jewish-American, or American) affects citizens’ evaluations of the critic, evaluations of the criticism, and positions regarding Israeli human rights record and practices. 

Our study finds a clear ingroup advantage. Israeli respondents expressed more agreement with the criticism and evaluated the critic more positively, when the criticism was delivered by an Israeli critic compared to non-Israeli ones (Jewish-Americans or Americans). This ingroup advantage is also relevant when examining the effects of criticism on public attitudes regarding human rights. We find that Israelis became less supportive of improving existing human rights practices (a backlash effect) only when the critics are non-Israeli. 

That said, diaspora critics still have a slight advantage over non-diasporic foreigners. In our survey, the intentions of Jewish-Americans critics were considered more positive than the intentions of non-Jewish Americans. 

We also find that the identity of the audience only mattered for Israeli critics. When an Israeli speaks abroad, their criticism is considered less constructive compared to criticism delivered domestically. However, for all other outcomes, the identity of the audience did not seem to have an effect. 

In the broader discussion about mitigating backlash to “naming and shaming,” our findings suggest that criticism from “insiders” is perceived as more constructive and could be more effective. Diaspora critics might also be more influential when compared to complete outsiders. Even in the “hard case” of Israel, characterized by sustained societal disapproval of the global human rights regime, we find that diaspora critics were still evaluated as more well-intentioned relative to foreign critics. Thus, human rights organizations might be better off working through local networks or involving diaspora activists in their efforts.

About the Author(s): Yehonatan Abramson is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Anil Menon is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California – Merced, and Abir Gitlin is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Their research “Whose critique matters? The effects of critic identity and audience on public opinion“ is now available in Early View and will appear in a forthcoming issue of the American Journal of Political Science.