A popular view holds that foreign policy hawks have an advantage at bringing about rapprochement with international adversaries. This idea is rooted in domestic politics: voters respond more favorably to efforts at reconciliation when their own leader has a hawkish rather than a dovish reputation. Yet, domestic reactions are only part of the equation—to succeed, rapprochement must also evoke a favorable response by the adversary. In this research note, we argue that hawks who make conciliatory gestures may face international liabilities that could offset their domestic advantages. Foreign audiences should view doves who make overtures as more sincere and should therefore be more willing to support cooperation with foreign doves than with foreign hawks. We field a pair of survey experiments to examine whether Americans respond differently when foreign hawks versus foreign doves deliver the olive branch. We find that foreign doves fare better at eliciting cooperation because they are deemed more sincere, though the prospect of military vulnerability limits how willing Americans are to respond positively even to a dove who makes a gesture. Thus, while past research has shown that hawks are better positioned domestically to initiate rapprochement, our findings suggest that they have a harder time eliciting a favorable response from the adversary.

一种流行的观点认为，外交政策鹰派在与国际对手和解方面具有优势。这个想法植根于国内政治：当他们自己的领导人有鹰派而不是鸽派声誉时，选民对和解努力的反应更积极。然而，国内的反应只是等式的一部分——要取得成功，和解还必须引起对手的有利反应。在这份研究报告中，我们认为做出和解姿态的鹰派可能面临可能抵消其国内优势的国际责任。外国观众应该认为主动示好的鸽派更真诚，因此更愿意支持与外国鸽派的合作，而不是与外国鹰派的合作。我们进行了两项调查实验，以检验当外国鹰派与外国鸽派抛出橄榄枝时，美国人的反应是否不同。我们发现，外国鸽派更善于促成合作，因为他们被认为更真诚，尽管军事脆弱性的前景限制了美国人积极回应的意愿，即使是对做出手势的鸽派也是如此。因此，虽然过去的研究表明，鹰派在国内处于更有利的位置以启动和解，但我们的研究结果表明，他们更难从对手那里得到有利的回应。尽管军事脆弱性的前景限制了美国人积极回应的意愿，即使是对做出手势的鸽派也是如此。因此，虽然过去的研究表明，鹰派在国内处于更有利的位置以启动和解，但我们的研究结果表明，他们更难从对手那里得到有利的回应。尽管军事脆弱性的前景限制了美国人积极回应的意愿，即使是对做出手势的鸽派也是如此。因此，虽然过去的研究表明，鹰派在国内处于更有利的位置以启动和解，但我们的研究结果表明，他们更难从对手那里得到有利的回应。