This research explores audience costs theory through a novel survey experiment examining domestic reactions to presidential policy shifts. We test whether U.S. publics respond differently when leaders abandon threats versus honor promises by entering conflicts.

Data & Methods:

Survey experiment using representative samples from the United States and other nations, analyzing responses to hypothetical scenarios of policy reversal.

Key Findings:

* Presidents experience significant support loss in both abandoning threats ("backing out") and honoring promises to stay out while entering conflicts ("backing in").

* However, "backing out" incurs a stronger penalty than "backing in," suggesting asymmetry in how the public treats broken promises versus inconsistent actions.

Why It Matters:

This study demonstrates that concerns over leadership consistency are fundamental to audience costs theory. The findings show punishment for inconsistency occurs regardless of whether leaders initially threaten or promise restraint, challenging simplified assumptions about domestic political accountability.