The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war: An experimental approach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

170 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Public support for a conflict is not a blank check. Combat provides information people use to update their expectations about the outcome, direction, value, and cost of a war. Critical are fatalitiesthe most salient costs of conflict. I develop a rational expectations theory in which both increasing recent casualties and rising casualty trends lead to decreased support. Traditional studies neither recognize nor provide a method for untangling these multiple influences. I conduct six experiments, three on the Iraq War (two with national, representative samples) and three with a new type of panel experiment design on hypothetical military interventions. The results of hazard and ordered logit analyses of almost 3,000 subjects support a rational expectations theory linking recent casualties, casualty trends, and their interaction to wartime approval. I also examine the effects of the probability of victory, information levels, and individual characteristics on the support for war, and contrast results from representative and convenience samples.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)95-106
Number of pages12
JournalAmerican Political Science Review
Volume102
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2008

Fingerprint

public support
military intervention
level of information
experiment
trend
costs
Iraq
interaction
Values

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

@article{c7bf8a83be9f43a08a6146d71fa24e81,
title = "The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war: An experimental approach",
abstract = "Public support for a conflict is not a blank check. Combat provides information people use to update their expectations about the outcome, direction, value, and cost of a war. Critical are fatalitiesthe most salient costs of conflict. I develop a rational expectations theory in which both increasing recent casualties and rising casualty trends lead to decreased support. Traditional studies neither recognize nor provide a method for untangling these multiple influences. I conduct six experiments, three on the Iraq War (two with national, representative samples) and three with a new type of panel experiment design on hypothetical military interventions. The results of hazard and ordered logit analyses of almost 3,000 subjects support a rational expectations theory linking recent casualties, casualty trends, and their interaction to wartime approval. I also examine the effects of the probability of victory, information levels, and individual characteristics on the support for war, and contrast results from representative and convenience samples.",
author = "Gartner, {Scott Sigmund}",
year = "2008",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0003055408080027",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "102",
pages = "95--106",
journal = "American Political Science Review",
issn = "0003-0554",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "1",

}

The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war : An experimental approach. / Gartner, Scott Sigmund.

In: American Political Science Review, Vol. 102, No. 1, 01.02.2008, p. 95-106.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war

T2 - An experimental approach

AU - Gartner, Scott Sigmund

PY - 2008/2/1

Y1 - 2008/2/1

N2 - Public support for a conflict is not a blank check. Combat provides information people use to update their expectations about the outcome, direction, value, and cost of a war. Critical are fatalitiesthe most salient costs of conflict. I develop a rational expectations theory in which both increasing recent casualties and rising casualty trends lead to decreased support. Traditional studies neither recognize nor provide a method for untangling these multiple influences. I conduct six experiments, three on the Iraq War (two with national, representative samples) and three with a new type of panel experiment design on hypothetical military interventions. The results of hazard and ordered logit analyses of almost 3,000 subjects support a rational expectations theory linking recent casualties, casualty trends, and their interaction to wartime approval. I also examine the effects of the probability of victory, information levels, and individual characteristics on the support for war, and contrast results from representative and convenience samples.

AB - Public support for a conflict is not a blank check. Combat provides information people use to update their expectations about the outcome, direction, value, and cost of a war. Critical are fatalitiesthe most salient costs of conflict. I develop a rational expectations theory in which both increasing recent casualties and rising casualty trends lead to decreased support. Traditional studies neither recognize nor provide a method for untangling these multiple influences. I conduct six experiments, three on the Iraq War (two with national, representative samples) and three with a new type of panel experiment design on hypothetical military interventions. The results of hazard and ordered logit analyses of almost 3,000 subjects support a rational expectations theory linking recent casualties, casualty trends, and their interaction to wartime approval. I also examine the effects of the probability of victory, information levels, and individual characteristics on the support for war, and contrast results from representative and convenience samples.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43049123452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=43049123452&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0003055408080027

DO - 10.1017/S0003055408080027

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:43049123452

VL - 102

SP - 95

EP - 106

JO - American Political Science Review

JF - American Political Science Review

SN - 0003-0554

IS - 1

ER -