For the full paper (open access): rdcu.be/e2CqG

So fear doesn't automatically lead to the dark side. When people reflect on and engage with their fears, it can lead to solidarity, not hate.

One explanation: shared threats create solidarity. Fear of a common enemy like a pandemic may reduce "us vs. them" thinking. This held for liberals and conservatives alike.

The paradox: People who report high fear? More hostile to others. People prompted to reflect on their fears? More open to others. Correlation and causation point in opposite directions.

Result: Induced fear increased donations to the charity helping foreign workers by about 10%. We found similar patterns in attitudes toward immigrants. Fear made people more open, not less.

Participants were randomly assigned to write about a recent experience that made them afraid — a commonly used method in emotion research. We measured actual donation decisions: keep the money, give to a domestic charity, or give to a charity helping foreign workers.

We ran a preregistered experiment during COVID-19 with about 6,500 people in South Korea — where fear was high and attitudes toward others had become politically charged.

Here's why: some people may simply be both more prone to anxiety AND more hostile toward others. Surveys alone can't tell us which causes which. To find out what fear actually does, we need an experiment.

There's research supporting this idea — surveys find fearful people are more hostile to others. But these are correlations. Being more fearful and being more hostile could simply go together.

"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." — Yoda

One of my coauthors, Ben, brought this up when we started. It captures a common belief: fear makes people hostile toward others. We wanted to test if that's true.

Very happy to see this out. "Fear and Favoritism in the Time of COVID-19" in Political Behavior (@polbehavior.bsky.social), with Baran Han, Benjamin Ho (@hoben.bsky.social), and Chrysostomos Tabakis. This project started back in 2020 and finally found a home.

Very happy to see this paper getting broader attention through the LSE USAPP blog. The piece summarizes our BJPS study on how anti-Asian hate crimes in the US shape perceptions of the US across nine Asian countries, and what congressional responses can (and cannot) do to mitigate the damage.

최근 소득세법 개정에 따라, 이제 해외 학자 특강에 단돈 이삼십만 원 사례비라도 드리려면:

① 한글로 된(!) 비과세·면제 신청서와
② 여권 등이 아닌, 국세청에 해당하는 외국 과세당국이 발행한 거주지증명서가 필요하다고 한다.

나라면 그냥 안 받고 안 오고 만다.
오늘도 아름답다, 연구행정.

BJPolS abstract discussing a study on the domestic consequences of hate crimes in the USA and their impact on various perceptions and legislative actions.

From May 2025 -

Anti-Asian Hate Crimes and American Reputation - cup.org/43cUf7F

- Joonseok Yang, @sungeunkim.bsky.social, @jongheepark.bsky.social & @inbok.bsky.social

#OpenAccess

This virtual event next Tuesday (June 3) will take place as the ballots in South Korea's presidential election are being counted!

Looking forward to joining my Yonsei polisci colleagues @jeonghyunkim.bsky.social and @inbok.bsky.social plus Seo-Hyun Park at Lafayette College.

All are welcome!

BJPolS abstract discussing a study on the domestic consequences of hate crimes in the USA and their impact on various perceptions and legislative actions.

NEW -

Anti-Asian Hate Crimes and American Reputation - cup.org/43cUf7F

"findings underscore the global significance of addressing hate crimes in the USA for the country’s reputation and soft power"

-Joonseok Yang, @sungeunkim.bsky.social, @jongheepark.bsky.social & @inbok.bsky.social

#OpenAccess

The Korean Association of Party Studies Presents: A fireside chat exploring how political and social movements respond to the challenges facing democracy today. Marshall Ganz (Harvard) and @jaeyeonkim.bsky.social discuss strategies for activism, organizing, and democratic renewal.

Citizen Responses to Donor-Centeredness in the US-China Public Diplomacy Competition The rapid expansion of China’s public diplomacy initiatives has garnered significant scholarly and popular attention as it challenges the sphere of a more traditional public diplomacy player, the U...

Our study contributes to debates on soft power & strategic competition.

When public diplomacy is seen as self-serving, it backfires—especially for China.

For policymakers, the takeaway is clear: mutuality matters.

🔗 Full paper: doi.org/10.1080/0305...

(8/8)

Alliances shape perceptions of donor-centered diplomacy.

📌 Citizens in US-aligned countries (e.g. 🇯🇵🇦🇺🇬🇧) were less likely to penalize the US.
📌 Citizens in China-aligned countries (e.g. 🇷🇺) reacted negatively to US donor-centeredness.

(7/🧵)

🌍 This has real-world implications:

Public diplomacy is a battleground for influence. If China wants to close the gap with the US, it may need to move away from donor-centered approaches and focus more on recipient needs.

(6/🧵)

Why? China’s soft power deficit means it has less room for strategic missteps.

When China is seen as prioritizing its own interests, skepticism rises.

The US, despite similar motives, seems to benefit from a more resilient reputation. 🔍

(5/🧵)

When a Chinese project was framed as donor-centric, support dropped by 3.6 percentage points.

Yet, when a US project was framed the same way, it had no meaningful impact on perceptions.

🇨🇳⬇️ 3.6% 📉
🇺🇸 ↔️ No significant change

(4/🧵)

📌 13 countries, 15,393 respondents
📌 Tested donor-centric vs. recipient-oriented framing in public diplomacy
📌 Measured how citizens react to projects from China vs. the US

Key finding: Donor-centeredness hurts China’s soft power—but not the US.

(3/🧵)

🇺🇸🇨🇳 China’s public diplomacy is often criticized as donor-centered—prioritizing Beijing’s interests over mutual benefits.

But does this affect how citizens in recipient countries respond?

We ran a multi-country survey experiment to find out. 📊

(2/🧵)

Citizen Responses to Donor-Centeredness in the US-China Public Diplomacy Competition The rapid expansion of China’s public diplomacy initiatives has garnered significant scholarly and popular attention as it challenges the sphere of a more traditional public diplomacy player, the U...

🚨 New paper:

Citizen Responses to Donor-Centeredness in the US-China Public Diplomacy Competition, with Sung Eun Kim (@sungeunkim.bsky.social), Jong Hee Park (@jongheepark.bsky.social), and Joonseok Yang

International Interactions (@intlinteractions.bsky.social):
🔗 doi.org/10.1080/0305... (1/🧵)

Anyone interested in democracy and its challenges is welcome to join! 🌍 This includes international students, foreign correspondents, scholars, or anyone curious about South Korea's recent developments. Let’s have an engaging conversation—hope to see you there!

Join us for a panel on Democratic Crisis in S. Korea & Its International Implications 📅 Dec. 19, 8 PM EST / Dec. 20, 10 AM KST. Discussion on the aftermath of martial law.
📍In English, open to all. Register for Q&A: myumi.ch/1b8z2. Please share widely!

So far, 282 political scientists worldwide have signed and supported our statement on impeachment. Hankyore, a mainstream media outlet, featured this just hours ago, and more to come. Thank you!!

www.hani.co.kr/arti/politic...

정치학자 특별 기획 집담회-계엄, 헌정 질서 도전과 한국의 민주주의 YouTube video by 연세대학교 정치학과 BK21 교육연구단

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIW9...

시국선언문에도 적었듯, 우리가 지지하는 정당, 추구하는 정치적 가치나 신념의 차이는 반헌법적·반민주적 비상계엄령 앞에서 무의미합니다. 현재의 반헌법적이고 반민주적인 상황이 조속히 탄핵이라는 헌법적 절차를 통해 헌정 질서를 회복하는 방향으로 마무리되기를 바랍니다.