Hubbry Logo
BandwagoningBandwagoningMain
Open search
Bandwagoning
Community hub
Bandwagoning
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bandwagoning
Bandwagoning
Bandwagoning
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Bandwagoning in international relations occurs when a state aligns with a stronger, adversarial power and concedes that the stronger adversary-turned-partner disproportionately gains in the spoils they conquer together.[1] Bandwagoning, therefore, is a strategy employed by states that find themselves in a weak position. The logic stipulates that an outgunned, weaker state should align itself with a stronger adversary because the latter can take what it wants by force anyway.[2] Thucydides' famous dictum that "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" captures the essence of bandwagoning.[3]

Bandwagoning occurs when weaker states decide that the cost of opposing a stronger power exceeds the benefits.[4] The stronger power may offer incentives, such as the possibility of territorial gain, trade agreements, or protection, to induce weaker states to join with it.[citation needed]

Realism predicts that states will bandwagon only when there is no possibility of building a balancing coalition or their geography makes balancing difficult (i.e. surrounded by enemies). Bandwagoning is considered to be dangerous because it allows a rival state to gain power.[5]

Bandwagoning is opposed to balancing, which calls for a state to prevent an aggressor from upsetting the balance of power.

Etymology

[edit]

Bandwagoning was coined by Quincy Wright in A Study of War (1942)[6] and popularized by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics (1979);[7] in his work, Waltz incorrectly attributes Stephen Van Evera with having coined the term.[8] Both Wright and Waltz employ the concept to serve as the opposite of balancing behaviour.

Foreign policy commitments

[edit]

The belief that states will ally with a dominant power, as opposed to balance against it, has been a common feature among foreign policy practitioners. German Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz's "risk theory", for example, posited that if Germany built a formidable naval fleet, it could force the United Kingdom into neutrality or alliance with it by threatening to the latter's maritime supremacy.[9]

According to Stephen Walt, "American officials have repeatedly embraced the bandwagoning hypothesis in justifying American foreign policy commitments." John F. Kennedy, for example, stated that "if the United States were to falter, the whole world... would inevitably begin to move toward the Communist bloc".[10] Henry Kissinger suggested that states tend to bandwagon "if leaders around the world... assume that the U.S. lacked either the forces or the will... they will accommodate themselves to the dominant trend".[11][12]

Ronald Reagan endorsed the same sentiment when he said, "If we cannot defend ourselves [in Central America], we cannot expect to prevail elsewhere. Our credibility would collapse, our alliances would crumble and the safety of our homeland would be put at jeopardy."[13]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bandwagoning

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Bandwagoning is a strategy in whereby weaker states align with a more powerful state or , often the source of threat or expansion, to obtain , share in anticipated gains, or minimize the costs of resistance. This contrasts with balancing, in which states form s to counter dominant powers and preserve systemic equilibrium. Originating in realist theories of alliance formation, bandwagoning is theorized to arise under when actors prioritize short-term accommodation over long-term , particularly when balancing appears futile due to power asymmetries or geographic proximity to the stronger . Neorealist scholars, such as , anticipate balancing as the prevailing response to due to mutual fears of subordination, rendering bandwagoning atypical except in cases of ideological affinity or private goods like territorial concessions. Empirical analyses, however, reveal bandwagoning's occurrence among secondary states confronting aggressors, especially when external balancing partners provide insufficient support or when revisionist powers offer exploitable opportunities. Statistical studies of patterns confirm that weak states bandwagon under conditions of acute , such as during regional conflicts with limited great-power intervention, though such alignments often yield precarious dependence rather than enduring benefits. A central controversy in the literature concerns bandwagoning's frequency and rationality: while some realists view it as a deviation explicable by domestic pathologies or misperceptions, others contend it reflects adaptive realism in unipolar or predatory environments, as evidenced by alignments with rising powers like or amid perceived U.S. retrenchment. These debates underscore causal tensions between structural incentives for resistance and pragmatic yields from deference, with quantitative data favoring balancing as norm but highlighting bandwagoning's role in of power vacuums. Beyond state behavior, analogous dynamics appear in subnational contexts, such as electoral momentum where voter shifts amplify perceived frontrunners, though interstate applications dominate theoretical scrutiny.

Etymology and Origins

Historical Development of the Term

The term "bandwagon" initially denoted a literal wagon transporting a musical band during 19th-century parades and circuses, intended to captivate audiences and swell crowds with lively performances. This imagery transitioned into American political lexicon during the 1848 presidential campaign of , where entertainer Dan Rice, a renowned , paraded politicians atop his band's wagon, using music and spectacle to rally supporters and symbolize momentum. Taylor's victory popularized the tactic, prompting subsequent campaigns to adopt bandwagons as emblems of inevitable success, thereby associating the term with opportunistic alignment to perceived winners. By the late , the phrase "jump on the bandwagon" had crystallized as a for hastily endorsing a popular movement or candidate, often implying a lack of independent . Its figurative sense—attaching oneself to any prospect of triumph—gained attestation in , reflecting broader cultural adoption beyond electoral contexts. The noun form "bandwagoning," denoting the act of trend-following, entered documented usage by 1904, as evidenced in period critiquing conformist behaviors in public affairs. This evolution underscored the term's roots in observable crowd dynamics, where visual and auditory cues of popularity incentivized mass participation, laying groundwork for later analyses in and . Early 20th-century applications extended to non-political domains, such as commercial fads, highlighting the term's versatility in describing instincts without reliance on formal .

Initial Political Usage

The term "jump on the bandwagon" entered political discourse in the United States during the presidential campaign of , where supporters were metaphorically encouraged to align with his rising popularity by joining a circus-style led by a . This usage drew from literal bandwagons in 19th-century circuses and , which carried musicians and attracted crowds, symbolizing momentum and visibility for candidates seeking to capitalize on public enthusiasm. Dan Rice, a prominent known as "the clown who ran for president," popularized the practice by renting his band's for Taylor's rallies, explicitly inviting backers to "jump aboard" as a sign of endorsement, thereby linking the physical to political . By the , the phrase had become a standard in American politics, denoting the strategic adoption of a or perceived as inevitable victors, often to avoid isolation or gain advantages from prevailing trends. This early application highlighted bandwagoning as a form of conformist driven by perceived support, distinct from genuine conviction, and was frequently invoked in campaign to undecided voters or politicians into alignment. Historical records indicate no earlier documented political of the term, confirming its roots in this era's fusion of entertainment spectacle and electoral strategy.

Conceptual Definition and Mechanisms

Core Definition Across Contexts

Bandwagoning denotes the tendency of individuals, groups, or states to adopt a , , or alignment primarily due to the observed popularity, , or dominance of that option among others, rather than through independent evaluation of its intrinsic value or risks. This phenomenon, often termed the in psychological and sociological contexts, arises from cognitive biases favoring , such as —where actions are validated by majority adoption—and aversion to deviating from perceived norms, which can signal isolation or missed opportunities. Empirical studies, including experimental voting simulations, demonstrate that exposure to polls showing one option gaining traction can shift preferences toward it by 5-10% on average, as participants infer validity from collective . In broader applications, bandwagoning transcends to influence collective dynamics, where the mechanism hinges on rational anticipation of gains from joining a perceived winner: enhanced , social , or economic benefits. For instance, in consumer behavior, for a product surges not from superior but from its rising , amplifying sales through self-reinforcing loops observed in fads like cryptocurrency booms in 2017-2018, where participation rates correlated with price momentum rather than fundamentals. Similarly, in electoral settings, voters may switch support to frontrunners based on polling leads, with meta-analyses of 20th-century U.S. elections indicating bandwagon shifts of up to 2-3 points in final tallies when late surges occur. A parallel form appears in , where bandwagoning involves subordinate states aligning with a superior power—often the aggressor or hegemon—to extract protection, spoils, or policy concessions, contrasting with balancing against threats. This strategic calculus, formalized in realist theories since the , posits that weaker actors bandwagon when resistance costs outweigh accommodation benefits, as evidenced in historical alignments like smaller European states joining Napoleonic in the early 1800s for territorial gains, rather than futile opposition. Across these domains, the core driver remains causal realism in : actors prioritize alignment with ascendant forces to minimize downside risks or maximize upside potential, though outcomes depend on accurate perception of momentum, which informational asymmetries can distort. While ubiquitous, the effect's magnitude varies empirically; laboratory experiments yield stronger conformity under ambiguous conditions, but real-world data sometimes reveal countervailing effects when majorities appear entrenched.

Psychological Underpinnings

The bandwagon effect arises from foundational mechanisms of , including , a cognitive where individuals infer the correctness of a belief or action from the observed prevalence of that behavior among others, particularly in situations of uncertainty or ambiguity. This principle, articulated by psychologist , functions as a mental shortcut to reduce complexity by assuming collective actions reflect valid information, thereby promoting without independent evaluation. from controlled experiments demonstrates that exposure to majority behaviors can override personal judgments, as seen in variations of perceptual tasks where participants align with group consensus despite evident errors. Normative and informational social influences further underpin bandwagoning, with normative pressure stemming from the human drive for social acceptance and aversion to , compelling individuals to adopt popular stances to maintain group harmony. Informational influence, conversely, treats majority adherence as probabilistic evidence of truth, especially among those with limited expertise, leading to processing rather than deliberate analysis. Peer-reviewed analyses confirm that bandwagon responses correlate with lower , where novices defer to perceived consensus as a proxy for accuracy, while experts resist due to stronger internal criteria. This duality explains why bandwagoning intensifies in novel or high-uncertainty contexts, such as emerging trends, without requiring explicit . Additional drivers include fear of missing out (FoMO), a psychological state amplifying perceived exclusion from rewarding group experiences, which propels adoption of majority trends to secure belonging and potential gains. Studies on consumption behavior link FoMO to bandwagon patterns, mediated by reference group susceptibility, where individuals prioritize social alignment over intrinsic preferences. These mechanisms collectively foster self-reinforcing cycles, as initial adopters signal validity to latecomers, though susceptibility varies by traits like self-esteem and cultural individualism, with collectivist societies exhibiting stronger effects.

Manifestations in Domestic Politics and Society

Electoral and Public Opinion Dynamics

In electoral contexts, the bandwagon effect describes voters shifting support toward candidates or parties perceived as leading, often based on published opinion polls or preliminary results, as individuals seek to align with anticipated winners or avoid backing likely losers. This dynamic can amplify leads through self-reinforcing mechanisms, where polls influence preferences, potentially altering outcomes. Empirical evidence remains mixed, with some studies documenting modest effects while others find negligible or context-specific impacts, underscoring the role of factors like voter information levels and system structure. Natural experiments provide causal evidence of bandwagoning. In the , voters in western overseas territories exposed to mainland exit polls—prior to a synchronizing voting—exhibited increased support for the projected winner, alongside an 11 percentage point drop in turnout, as individuals adjusted choices upon learning expected results. Similarly, a large-scale survey experiment using real-world Dutch poll data from 2012 demonstrated that respondents updated vote intentions toward frontrunners after viewing recent poll shifts, with effects persisting across undecided and partisan voters. In the , multilevel analysis of rolling cross-section data linked daily poll exposure to heightened intentions for the leading Social Democratic Party (odds ratio 1.107, p=0.006), though no broad bandwagon emerged across parties, and social class showed limited moderation. Historical analyses reveal bandwagon patterns predating modern polling. In British general elections from to 1910, voter behavior favored the party that ultimately secured victory, independent of prior seat gains, suggesting anticipation of outcomes drove shifts rather than mere momentum. Such effects correlate with voter traits; less politically expert individuals display stronger bandwagon tendencies, interpreting polls as signals of viability, while support often stems from fairness motives among informed voters. In dynamics, bandwagoning extends to non-electoral attitudes, where perceived majorities—signaled by polls or media—prompt to avoid isolation. Experimental evidence shows poll reports can nudge opinions toward reported consensus, though countervailing underdog effects occur when polls highlight minorities. In polarized settings, this interacts with selective exposure, amplifying dominant views via media amplification of poll leads, yet empirical tests yield inconsistent magnitudes, with effects stronger in low-information environments. Overall, these dynamics highlight polls' role in shaping collective sentiment, though causal chains involve voter and coordination incentives rather than pure mimicry.

Social Media Amplification in the 2020s

Social media platforms, particularly and in the 2020s, have accelerated bandwagoning by leveraging algorithms that prioritize high-engagement content, thereby exposing users to exponentially growing numbers of participants in trends or opinions, fostering rapid . This amplification occurs through feedback loops where initial popularity signals—such as likes, shares, and views—trigger further algorithmic promotion, reducing exposure to dissenting views and encouraging users to join perceived majorities to avoid . Empirical analysis of Korean stock discussions from 2018 to 2021 demonstrated that abnormal information creation activity on platforms like correlated positively with retail investor , with the effect persisting but attenuating post-March 2020 amid heightened COVID-19-related participation. Viral challenges on exemplify this dynamic, where behaviors like the Tide Pod Challenge in 2018–2019 evolved into broader 2020s trends, drawing millions into participation as users observed peers' involvement, driven by and (FOMO). A 2025 study on Gen Z consumptive buying found that bandwagon effects, combined with FOMO, significantly boosted outcomes, with users adopting trends for social belonging rather than intrinsic value. Similarly, Reddit's WallStreetBets subreddit fueled the January 2021 , where coordinated retail buying propelled the stock from $17.25 on January 4 to a peak of $483 on January 28, as participants piled in response to visible momentum and narratives. These mechanisms have intensified risks, including cascades and performative , as rewards from in-group validation encourage users to echo dominant sentiments without independent scrutiny. While platforms' design simulates user autonomy, selective amplification often homogenizes behaviors within echo chambers, as seen in political opinion shifts on (now X) where viral hashtags in 2020 elections rapidly aligned user expressions with trending views. Critiques highlight that such bandwagoning can override rational assessment, yet empirical data underscores its prevalence in low-stakes trends and high-volatility domains like investing, where supplanted traditional analysis.

Economic and Behavioral Economics Applications

In consumer behavior, the drives individuals to purchase goods or adopt trends not solely for intrinsic but because they observe others doing so, leading to heightened demand as perceived popularity reinforces adoption. This phenomenon was formalized by economist Harvey Leibenstein in 1950, who described the as a deviation from standard demand curves, where an individual's consumption of a commodity increases at a given precisely because others are consuming more of it, reflecting social interdependence in preferences. Empirical research supports its prevalence in marketing contexts, particularly when amplified by psychological factors like (FoMO). A 2020 study analyzing survey data from 362 Chinese consumers found that high FoMO levels combined with luxury product categories—such as handbags—produced the strongest bandwagon consumption tendencies, with participants reporting greater willingness to purchase items signaling alignment over necessities like everyday apparel. Similarly, a 2022 empirical investigation into revealed that bandwagon cues, including peer endorsements and popularity indicators, significantly elevated purchase intentions by fostering trust through perceived social consensus, with confirming a direct positive path from to buying behavior among 300 respondents. Marketing practitioners exploit this effect through tactics emphasizing , such as displaying user testimonials, sales volume metrics, or "best-seller" labels to simulate widespread adoption. For example, platforms often highlight review counts or "millions sold" badges, which experimental studies link to increased conversion rates by triggering desires. In viral campaigns, limited-edition releases create that mimics organic bandwagoning; Coca-Cola's 2011 "" initiative, which personalized bottles with common names, leveraged social sharing to drive a 2% U.S. increase amid declining soda , as consumers bought multiples to join the distribution trend observed among peers. In the 2020s, digital platforms have intensified bandwagon dynamics in consumer trends, with social media algorithms prioritizing viral content that showcases collective enthusiasm for products like athleisure wear or tech gadgets. A 2023 analysis of consumptive buying in Indonesia showed that bandwagon effects, measured via items like "I want products most people buy," positively correlated with impulsive online purchases during trend peaks, underscoring how algorithmic amplification sustains short-lived fads over sustained evaluation. However, this reliance on transient popularity can lead to overconsumption of non-essential items, as evidenced by post-peak sales drops in hyped categories like certain skincare lines following influencer-driven surges.

Investment Bubbles and Herd Behavior

In financial markets, bandwagoning aligns with , wherein investors imitate the apparent consensus of market participants, often prioritizing observed actions over independent evaluation of asset fundamentals. This dynamic fosters informational cascades, where early trades signal confidence, prompting subsequent investors to suppress private information and join the trend, thereby inflating prices beyond intrinsic values and precipitating bubbles. Such cascades can persist due to reputational concerns, where deviating from the herd risks professional isolation, or speculative motives, amplifying volatility and mispricings across . The of the late 1990s illustrates this mechanism vividly, as enthusiasm for internet ventures spurred widespread into technology stocks, many of which operated at losses without proven revenue models. Institutional and retail investors alike chased surging valuations, with the Index climbing from approximately 1,000 points in 1995 to a peak of 5,048 on March 10, 2000, driven by mutual mimicry rather than earnings growth. The ensuing crash erased roughly $5 trillion in by October 2002, with the index falling 78% from its high, as reversed into panic selling amid revealed overvaluations. Empirical analyses confirm dynamic intensified during this volatile episode, correlating with extreme price deviations. The 2000s U.S. housing bubble provides another case, where rising home prices encouraged bandwagon participation from lenders, speculators, and homeowners, who extrapolated perpetual appreciation and relaxed underwriting standards for subprime mortgages. The S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index increased by about 90% between January 2000 and its peak in mid-2006, fueling a lending boom that securitized risky loans into widely held instruments. Investors herded into these assets, enticed by yields and the crowd's momentum, until defaults surged in 2007, collapsing prices and triggering the with global losses exceeding $10 trillion in equity and related derivatives. Observers like and have described this as a classic , where fear of missing gains overrode caution against evident risks. These episodes underscore herd behavior's role in amplifying systemic risks, as synchronized actions during upswings create fragility, while reversals propagate contagions. Studies show elevates crash probabilities by distorting information efficiency, though it may occasionally coordinate rational responses; in bubble contexts, however, it predominantly stems from psychological factors like overconfidence and , rather than fundamentals.

International Relations and Geopolitics

Theoretical Debate: Balancing vs. Bandwagoning

In , balancing refers to states forming alliances or taking actions to counter the most threatening power, thereby preventing any single actor from achieving , while bandwagoning involves weaker states aligning with the dominant or threatening power to gain security, spoils, or influence. Structural realists, such as , predict that balancing predominates in an anarchic system because states prioritize survival by aggregating power against potential dominators rather than conceding relative gains through bandwagoning. Stephen M. Walt's seminal analysis in The Origins of Alliances (1987) empirically tested this by examining Middle Eastern alliances from 1955 to 1979, finding that states balanced against perceived threats—defined by aggregate power, offensive capabilities, proximity, and aggressive intentions—rather than merely raw power, with bandwagoning occurring infrequently and primarily among militarily weak or geographically distant states seeking to avert immediate conquest. Walt argued that bandwagoning is suboptimal for most states, as it invites exploitation by the stronger ally and signals weakness, leading to empirical dominance of balancing coalitions, such as Arab states aligning against despite its power disparity. Challenging this, Randall L. Schweller in "Bandwagoning for Profit" (1994) contended that bandwagoning is not merely the inverse of balancing but a rational for revisionist states—those dissatisfied with the status quo—pursuing territorial or ideological gains by attaching to ascendant powers, distinguishing "bandwagoning for profit" (opportunistic alignment by elites or "jackals") from fear-driven submission by vulnerable actors. Schweller critiqued threat-based models for overlooking domestic revisionism and state type, proposing that wolves (aggressive revisionists) bandwagon to exploit conquests, as seen in historical cases like Italy's alignment with pre-World War II, thereby integrating to explain deviations from pure balancing. The debate persists on prevalence: defensive realists emphasize balancing's systemic incentives under uncertainty, while offensive realists like John J. Mearsheimer acknowledge bandwagoning's rarity due to its power-conceding risks but predict it in extreme asymmetries or when balancing coalitions fail, as in potential alignments with regional hegemons. Empirical reviews, including Schweller's typology, indicate bandwagoning comprises less than 20% of alliances in major power systems since , confined to conditions like unipolarity or ideological affinity, underscoring balancing's robustness despite exceptions driven by elite incentives over structural imperatives.

Historical Case Studies

In the autumn of 198 B.C., the , a confederation of Greek city-states, abruptly shifted its longstanding alliance with Macedon to align with during the Second Macedonian War, exemplifying "jackal bandwagoning" where weaker actors join a rising hegemon to secure territorial gains, autonomy, and protection against a declining power. This decision followed Roman victories over , prompting Achaean leaders to calculate that siding with the expanding offered greater prospects for expansion into Macedonian-held territories like and safety from Hellenistic rivals, rather than persisting with a weakening ally. The alignment contributed to Rome's decisive defeat of Macedon at the in 197 B.C., after which the Achaeans received promised autonomies and lands, though eventual Roman dominance led to the League's dissolution in the of 146 B.C. During the lead-up to and early phases of , several revisionist states in engaged in bandwagoning for profit by aligning with , motivated by opportunities to reclaim lost territories and economic benefits amid perceived German ascendancy. , having lost significant lands under the 1920 , joined the Axis via the on November 20, 1940, after Germany facilitated the Vienna Award of August 30, 1940, granting northern from in exchange for alignment and military support. Similarly, , facing territorial losses to the USSR in June 1940 and Soviet threats, signed the on November 23, 1940, to secure German protection and economic aid, including oil exports critical to the , while regaining southern Dobruja via the in September 1940. These "jackal" alignments, as termed by Schweller, allowed weaker states to opportunistically exploit Germany's expansion against common foes like the Soviets, though they ultimately exposed these nations to Allied invasion and postwar retribution. In the , particularly from 1806 to 1813, numerous German principalities bandwagoned with under Napoleon Bonaparte to gain spoils from the dismemberment of the and Habsburg territories, prioritizing profit over balancing against French hegemony. The formation of the on July 12, 1806, saw over a dozen states, including and , align with , receiving elevated statuses, mediatized territories from ecclesiastical and imperial free cities, and military exemptions in exchange for contingents supporting Napoleon's campaigns. This wave-of-the-future bandwagoning reflected calculations that French dominance ensured territorial aggrandizement—Bavaria, for instance, doubled its size—amid the collapse of traditional balances, though it facilitated Napoleon's overextension and eventual defeat at in 1813. Such cases underscore how revisionist incentives drive weaker states to join aggressors when the expected gains from predation outweigh resistance costs.

Post-Cold War and Recent Examples

In the post-Cold War era, Eastern European states, particularly former members such as , , and the Baltic republics, exhibited bandwagoning behavior by rapidly integrating into and the to align with the predominant U.S.-led Western order. This alignment, accelerating after 's 1999 enlargement wave which admitted , , and the on March 12, 1999, was driven less by immediate balancing against a resurgent and more by opportunistic gains including security guarantees, economic aid, and institutional prestige amid U.S. unipolar dominance. Scholars argue this constituted "bandwagoning for profit," as these states sought to capitalize on the hegemon's stability rather than merely counter diffuse threats, with membership providing asymmetric benefits like Article 5 protections without equivalent reciprocal burdens. The U.S.-led coalitions following the September 11, 2001, attacks further illustrated bandwagoning, as smaller allies like and committed disproportionate military resources to operations in (from October 2001) and (from March 2003). deployed over 750 troops to by 2006, sustaining high casualties relative to its population, while contributed and logistics support exceeding its strategic necessities. These actions are interpreted as "bandwagoning for prestige," whereby junior partners enhanced their international standing and domestic legitimacy by associating with the superpower's campaigns, rather than purely balancing terrorist threats, in an environment of low great-power rivalry. More recently, Turkey's with after the downing of a Russian jet and subsequent purchase of S-400 missile systems in 2017 exemplifies "assertive bandwagoning," where a member selectively aligned with a revisionist power for tangible gains like discounted energy deals (e.g., pipeline operationalized in 2020) and leverage against U.S. pressures. This shift, culminating in normalized ties by 2016 despite ongoing obligations, reflects bandwagoning under conditions of perceived U.S. unreliability, allowing Turkey to extract concessions from the stronger actor amid regional instability. In , Australia's deepened security ties with the U.S. via the pact (announced September 15, 2021) demonstrate bandwagoning amid rising Chinese influence, prioritizing alignment for nuclear submarine technology and deterrence benefits over pure balancing. Central European states have oscillated between bandwagoning with Western institutions and hedging toward and in the , particularly Hungary's vetoes of sanctions on post-February 24, , invasion of , securing exemptions for Russian oil imports worth €4.5 billion annually. This selective alignment yields economic privileges, challenging the narrative of uniform Western cohesion and highlighting bandwagoning's persistence even in multipolar tensions. Empirical analyses note that such behaviors prevail when weaker actors perceive limited balancing efficacy, prioritizing short-term utility over ideological affinity.

Empirical Evidence and Critiques

Supporting Studies and Data

Empirical investigations into the in electoral contexts have demonstrated its measurable impact on voter behavior. In a voting experiment involving real incentives and pre-election polls, participants exposed to majority-leading options increased their votes for those options by 7 percentage points compared to a control group without poll information, indicating a direct causal link between perceived and preference shifts. Similar evidence from on French elections shows that past rankings and polls induce bandwagon effects, with voters coordinating toward frontrunners, particularly in multi-candidate races where poll visibility amplifies momentum for leading candidates by influencing both turnout and preference changes. These findings align with analyses of German election polls, where less educated voters exhibited stronger bandwagon responses to published , shifting support toward perceived winners by up to 5-10% in aggregate shifts during campaign periods. In and economic domains, laboratory experiments have quantified bandwagoning in for conspicuous . A controlled experiment with participants allocating budgets to luxury items found that exposure to information about high from peers or influencers increased purchases of those items by 15-20%, with the effect intensifying when popularity was tied to signals rather than intrinsic quality. Broader systematic reviews of bandwagon literature, synthesizing over 50 studies across and , confirm the effect's prevalence in consumption choices, where individuals adjust preferences toward majority-adopted products to gain perceived social approval, with effect sizes ranging from small (Cohen's d ≈ 0.2) in low-involvement decisions to moderate (d ≈ 0.5) in status-sensitive markets. In , statistical analyses of alliance formations provide evidence of bandwagoning among weaker states facing aggressors. A dataset examination of over 500 alliances from 1816-2007 revealed that small states bandwagon with revisionist powers under high , with probability estimates showing a 12-18% increase in alignment likelihood when the aggressor offers survival guarantees, contrasting with balancing in symmetric power scenarios. Case-specific data from post-Cold War alignments, such as Eastern European states' accommodation toward in dependencies, further support profit-driven bandwagoning, where economic incentives outweighed ideological resistance, leading to policy concessions in 60% of observed bilateral ties from 1991-2010. These patterns hold despite theoretical emphasis on balancing, with empirical models indicating bandwagoning accounts for 20-30% of minor power strategies in dominance hierarchies.

Rationality Flaws and Strategic Risks

Bandwagoning in often reveals rationality flaws rooted in short-termist , where states prioritize perceived immediate survival or gains over long-term and deterrence capabilities. Structural realists contend that this behavior misaligns with the logic of , as weaker actors concede relative power to a threatening patron, empowering it further and diminishing their own leverage in future interactions. Such alignments typically arise from desperation or rather than calculated equilibrium strategies, leading to suboptimal outcomes like reduced and heightened to exploitation. Randall L. Schweller's analysis highlights how revisionist states may bandwagon "for profit," seeking spoils from a dominant power's expansion, yet this presumes reliable patron —a flawed assumption given historical precedents of betrayal or marginalization post-victory. Cognitive and perceptual biases exacerbate these flaws, as leaders overestimate shared interests or underestimate the patron's incentives to renege once threats are neutralized, echoing prospect theory's emphasis on driving accommodation over resistance. Strategically, bandwagoning incurs risks of subordination and , where the aligned state becomes a proxy in the patron's conflicts, bearing costs disproportionate to benefits. Minor powers engaging in "jackal bandwagoning"—opportunistic alignment for territorial or resource gains—face amplified dangers, as seen in interwar alignments with expansionist powers that ended in occupation or partition upon defeat. In modern contexts, such as middle powers hedging toward rising hegemons, bandwagoning exposes economies to dependency and militaries to coerced involvement in distant disputes, potentially eroding domestic without guaranteed returns. These risks underscore bandwagoning's deviation from balancing's preservative effects, often resulting in amplified threats rather than mitigation.

Debunking Prevalence Myths

Despite theoretical prominence in realist scholarship, the notion that bandwagoning—aligning with a dominant or threatening power for security or gain—is a prevalent state strategy has been empirically challenged. Stephen Walt's analysis of alliance formations in the from the mid-1950s to the late 1970s, examining cases involving , , , , and others amid competition, found balancing against perceived threats to be the dominant pattern, with bandwagoning occurring in only isolated instances under extreme power asymmetries or ideological affinity. Walt quantified this by reviewing over 30 alliances and alignments, concluding that "balancing is far more common than bandwagoning," as states prioritized countering the source of danger over accommodation. This rarity extends to post-Cold War contexts. A 2024 study of state alignments in and with rising powers like and identified bandwagoning as exceptional, limited to cases where smaller states faced imminent conquest risks or anticipated spoils without viable balancing alternatives, such as certain Central Asian republics aligning with post-1991. Empirical datasets on formal alliances, including the Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions (ATOP) database covering 1816–2007, corroborate low bandwagoning incidence, with fewer than 10% of alignments fitting the pattern during threat-heavy periods like the interwar era or bipolar standoffs. Scholars like Stephen Van Evera have reinforced this, labeling bandwagoning a "rare event" based on historical surveys of great power interactions, where weaker actors typically sought coalitions against aggressors rather than submission. In , the myth of ubiquitous bandwagoning in markets—often invoked to explain every investment frenzy—overstates its role relative to information cascades or rational herding. Experimental evidence from controlled asset markets shows bandwagon effects emerging only under high and visibility of others' actions, but dissipating with private information access, as in Smith et al.'s 1988 bubble experiments where deviations from fundamentals persisted less due to pure than misperceived trends. Large-scale surveys, such as those analyzing U.S. polling from 1948–2012, detect subtle bandwagon shifts (e.g., 1-2% vote intention boosts from reported leads), but no pervasive dominance, with effects or rational Bayesian updating explaining more variance in voter behavior. These findings underscore bandwagoning's conditional nature, debunking claims of it as a default human or state response.

References

  1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539149
  2. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-political-behavior/chpt/bandwagoning-state.pdf
  3. https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/rsis-pubs/WP54.pdf
  4. https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=sc-research
  5. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00208817221085414
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232895330_Do_Weak_States_Bandwagon
  7. https://www.e-ir.info/2024/02/29/review-bandwagoning-in-international-relations/
  8. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/soft-balancing-binding-or-bandwagoning-understanding-institutional-responses-to-power-disparities-in-the-americas/F659485E1DE762A671DE0D368E1F8FAE
  9. https://storage.vernonpress.com/files/web/01d6af80-6bbc-4310-ac83-b9a6b648c294/1710194568.pdf
  10. https://www.etymonline.com/word/bandwagon
  11. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/bandwagon/
  12. https://the-word-nerd.medium.com/where-did-the-expression-jump-on-the-bandwagon-come-from-2ad7e310dea4
  13. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/bandwagon-effect
  14. https://www.bookbrowse.com/expressions/detail/index.cfm/expression_number/710/jump-on-the-bandwagon
  15. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/bandwagoning_n
  16. https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/phrases/jump-on-the-bandwagon
  17. https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/jump-on-the-bandwagon.html
  18. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/04/origin-phrase-jump-bandwagon/
  19. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-bandwagon-effect-2795895
  20. https://dictionary.apa.org/bandwagon-effect
  21. https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/bandwagon-effect
  22. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/33/2/412/5857291
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296322000972
  24. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1478929919870691
  25. https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/global-security-and-political-problems-of-the-21st-century/107090
  26. https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/9241/9241.html
  27. https://www.influenceatwork.com/7-principles-of-persuasion/
  28. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stronger-at-the-broken-places/201708/the-bandwagon-effect
  29. https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/9241
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2441
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9364306/
  32. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/28/1/46/2357273
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292115000483
  34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42003193
  35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/193747
  36. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457289.2023.2189730
  37. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053168014547667
  38. https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/cv/phd/risk_aversion.pdf
  39. https://medium.com/business-expert-news/the-role-of-social-media-algorithms-in-reinforcing-herd-behavior-while-simulating-user-autonomy-fc2caa6959ae
  40. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/balanced/202309/social-media-and-herd-mentality
  41. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physics/articles/10.3389/fphy.2022.1023071/full
  42. https://psicopico.com/en/el-efecto-de-arrastre-bandwagon-effect-en-redes-sociales/
  43. https://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/jibe/article/download/40376/16974/148748
  44. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/30/gamestop-reddit-and-robinhood-a-full-recap-of-the-historic-retail-trading-mania-on-wall-street.html
  45. https://intellectia.ai/blog/meme-stock-phenomenon
  46. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/64/2/183/1931945
  47. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2070526
  48. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125941605.pdf
  49. https://www.audiencescience.com/bandwagon-advertising-examples/
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340075217_A_Study_on_Bandwagon_Consumption_Behavior_Based_on_Fear_of_Missing_Out_and_Product_Characteristics
  51. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/staffp/2001/01/pdf/Bikhchan.pdf
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370760161_Behavioral_Finance_An_Introduction_of_Herd_Effect_-_Take_the_Dotcom_Bubble_in_2000s_as_an_Example
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2827453/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612322005414
  55. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career-map/sell-side/capital-markets/herd-mentality-bias/
  56. https://buffett.cnbc.com/2018/04/20/they-saw-trouble-as-home-prices-soared-but.html
  57. https://www.fdic.gov/media/18636
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0377221722005690
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927539823000555
  60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440251319995
  61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt32b5fc
  62. http://web.stanford.edu/class/ips198/docs/Walt.pdf
  63. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801494185/the-origins-of-alliances/
  64. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/447318/summary
  65. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Reckless-States-and-Realism.pdf
  66. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07075332.2022.2115098
  67. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/joining-hitlers-crusade/romania/B9B430C5AA2A23A3BF450BF0668B1BAD
  68. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-political-behavior/chpt/bandwagoning-state
  69. http://web.isanet.org/Web/Conferences/CEEISA-ISA-LBJ2016/Archive/8d1b0fd4-2fb1-442d-8208-b20e1b91042b.pdf
  70. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/231440524.pdf
  71. https://keia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/australia_and_u.s.-china_relations.pdf
  72. https://internationalrelations-publishing.org/articles/4-8
  73. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20210840
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317262900_An_experimental_study_of_the_bandwagon_effect_in_conspicuous_consumption
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329118605_Bandwagoning_for_Survival_Political_Leaders_and_International_Alignments
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245580359_Bandwagoning_for_Profit_Bringing_the_Revisionist_State_Back_In
  77. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/152841/pollmann-minapoll-phd-poli-sc-2023-thesis.pdf?sequence=1
  78. https://web.pdx.edu/~gilleyb/MiddlePowersDuringPowerTransitions.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.