Does whataboutism work in global affairs? When states face international criticism, they often respond with whataboutism: accusing their critics of similar faults. Despite its prevalence in policy discussions, whataboutism remains an understudied influence strategy. This study investigates how states use whataboutism to shape American public opinion across various international issues. We find, using survey experiments, that whataboutism mitigates the negative impacts of criticism by reducing public approval of US positions and backing for punitive actions. Whataboutist critiques referencing similar, recent misdeeds have more power to shape opinions. However, the identity of the whataboutist state does not significantly affect effectiveness. US counter-messaging often fails to diminish the effects of whataboutism. These results show that whataboutism can be a potent rhetorical tool in international relations and that it warrants greater attention from international relations scholars.

中文翻译：

---

怎么样主义外交与美国外交政策态度

怎么样主义在全球事务中有效吗？当国家面临国际批评时，它们通常会采取“Whataboutism”的回应：指责批评者犯有类似的错误。尽管“Whataboutism”在政策讨论中盛行，但它仍然是一种未被充分研究的影响力策略。这项研究调查了各国如​​何利用“Whataboutism”来塑造美国在各种国际问题上的舆论。我们通过调查实验发现，怎么样主义通过减少公众对美国立场的认可和对惩罚性行动的支持来减轻批评的负面影响。引用最近类似的不当行为的“怎么样”主义批评更有能力塑造观点。然而，行动主义国家的身份并不会显着影响有效性。美国的反信息往往无法削弱“怎么样主义”的影响。这些结果表明，Whataboutism可以成为国际关系中有效的修辞工具，值得国际关系学者更多的关注。