When and why do foreign policy officials believe that it is important to fight for credibility? Conventional wisdom suggests that policymakers tend to care uniformly about how others perceive them. Yet this logic overlooks substantial variation in how officials prioritize credibility when weighing policy options. I argue that organizational identity affects the dimensions of credibility that policymakers value and their preferences on the use of force. Diplomats see the world from a reputational perspective, whereas military officials do so through the lens of military capabilities. During crises, diplomats match their advice to reputational considerations, while military officials attend to available capabilities. I examine these propositions via an original, vignette-based elite experiment involving over 250 U.S. national security officials and analysis of historical elite survey data. The findings demonstrate that where you sit shapes when you want to fight for credibility.

中文翻译：

---

可信度、组织政治和危机决策


外交政策官员何时以及为何认为争取信誉很重要？传统观点认为，政策制定者往往一致关心其他人如何看待他们。然而，这种逻辑忽视了官员在权衡政策选择时如何优先考虑可信度的巨大差异。我认为组织身份会影响政策制定者所重视的可信度以及他们对使用武力的偏好。外交官从声誉的角度看待世界，而军事官员则是从军事能力的角度看待世界。在危机期间，外交官将他们的建议与声誉考虑相结合，而军事官员则关注现有能力。我通过一项原创的、基于小插曲的精英实验来检验这些命题，该实验涉及 250 多名美国国家安全官员，并对历史精英调查数据进行分析。研究结果表明，当你想争取信誉时，你的立场决定了你的立场。