Jason Gilmore

The idea of American exceptionalism has lived a long and vibrant life in U.S. politics. In recent years, however, many have suggested that the United States might be losing its edge in world affairs. Little research has sought to examine the effects that these explicit challenges to American exceptionalism might have on U.S. public opinion. With this in mind, we conducted an experiment in which a large sample of U.S. adults was exposed to such messages. Specifically, drawing on social identity theory, we explore the psychological dynamics that shape how U.S. adults might respond to messages that directly challenge the idea of American exceptionalism depending on whether these challenges come from competitor countries (e.g., China and Britain) or noncompetitor countries (e.g., Australia and Mexico). Our findings suggest that challenges to this idea have a significant impact on (1) U.S. adults’ sense of American exceptionalism, (2) their willingness to actively degrade other countries, and (3) their attributions of responsibility for the United States’ perceived decline. We reflect on the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.

Scholars have widely demonstrated that the process by which officials frame their communications significantly impacts how citizens understand, evaluate, and respond to policy issues or events. This study attempts to build on existing framing research in two important ways. First, we seek to illuminate the importance of " cultural resonance " in determining whether an individual frame is likely to gain acceptance among its intended audience. Second, we assess the impact of " frame contestation " on the adoption of such frames. We explore these dynamics in the context of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Specifically, we conducted an experiment in which U.S. adults were exposed to a news story about U.S. military transgressions in Afghanistan. Our results indicate that frames, designed to appeal to and protect the national identity, broadly resonated among respondents, impacting their perceptions of the character, causes and consequences of the transgressions, as well as their broader attitudes about the nation, the U.S. military, and the war in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, when these frames were presented, and then explicitly contested within the same news story, it diminished—but not entirely—these framing effects. We reflect on the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for journalists, officials, and the broader public.

This paper explores the circumstances under which U.S. presidents have invoked the idea of American exceptionalism in major speeches to the nation and how the invocation of this concept has culminated during the Obama presidency. To explore these dynamics, we conducted a content analysis of all major domestic presidential addresses since the end of World War II. We find that U.S. presidents have become increasingly likely to invoke American exceptionalism, particularly after the end of the Cold War, and that in times of national crises, American exceptionalism becomes most pronounced in U.S. presidential discourse. Moreover, we demonstrate the overwhelming propensity of President Obama, relative to his predecessors, to emphasize American exceptionalism in his public communications. The reason, we argue, has to do with the double-crisis nature of his presidency—two major wars and a recession—in addition to the racial bind that he has been forced to overcome throughout his presidency. We reflect on the implications of these findings for politicians, in particular racial and other minorities, as well as the broader American public.