How does international shaming and praising affect domestic support for joining international agreements? Many scholars have examined the role of shaming in leading countries to support international agreements, and a wide literature on social opprobrium suggests that both governments and citizens are sensitive to being named and shamed. Yet far less is known about the dynamics of praise in international relations and how they compare to the dynamics of shame. This article uses a survey experiment to test and compare the effects of praising and shaming on individuals’ support for their government joining an international agreement. Specifically, it tests whether praising or shaming from other countries leads individuals to support their country joining a hypothetical international agreement that would ban the use of explosive weapons. It finds that praising is effective in increasing public support for joining the treaty, while shaming is not. By examining the extent to which praising and shaming can shape public opinion on international security agreements, this article provides new insights regarding how states and NGOs can use these rhetorical tools to build support for new legal norms. For policymakers and activists seeking to promote new norms and agreements, understanding the role of praising and shaming in changing public opinion can help them better direct their resources and improve their strategies.

国际羞辱和赞扬如何影响国内对加入国际协议的支持？许多学者研究了羞辱在支持国际协议的主要国家中的作用，大量关于社会谴责的文献表明，政府和公民都对被点名和羞辱很敏感。然而，人们对于国际关系中赞美的动态以及它们与羞耻的动态的比较却知之甚少。本文使用一项调查实验来测试和比较表扬和羞辱对个人支持政府加入国际协议的影响。具体来说，它测试来自其他国家的赞扬或羞辱是否会导致个人支持自己的国家加入一项假设的禁止使用爆炸性武器的国际协议。研究发现，赞扬可以有效增加公众对加入条约的支持，而羞辱则不然。通过研究赞扬和羞辱可以在多大程度上塑造公众对国际安全协议的舆论，本文提供了关于国家和非政府组织如何利用这些修辞工具来为新的法律规范提供支持的新见解。对于寻求推动新规范和协议的政策制定者和活动家来说，了解表扬和羞辱在改变公众舆论中的作用可以帮助他们更好地引导资源并改进策略。