The public’s inability to gain direct personal experience or information about American military operations means that individuals must rely on cues to form opinions about war. But in an environment filled will potential cues, which ones do Americans tend to rely on when deciding whether to support an ongoing military operation? This experimental study uses two distinct cues within the context of a newspaper story about the Iraq War to test four theoretical models of the American public’s reliance on cues. The results provide fairly consistent support for the “surprising events” model of opinion formation, which suggests that individuals will attend to news events that conflict with their expectations in an effort to update their attitudes toward the war. These results also provide support for the cost/benefit perspective on the formation of public opinion toward war that underpins much of the literature on casualty tolerance during military conflicts.
Abramovitz, A.1978. The impact of a presidential debate on voter rationality . American Journal of Political Science22:680-90.
2.
Achen, C., and L. Bartels.2006. It feels like we are thinking: The rationalizing voter and electoral democracy. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. Philadelphia. August-September.
3.
Aday, S., J. Cluverius, and S. Livingston.2005. As goes the statue, so goes the war: The emergence of the victory frame in television coverage of the Iraq War . Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media49:314-32.
4.
Aldrich, J.H., C.F. Gelpi, P.D. Feaver, J. Reifler, and K.T. Sharp.2006. Foreign policy and the electoral connection . Annual Review of Political Science9:477-502.
5.
Allen, B., P. O’Loughlin, A. Jasperson, and J. Sullivan.1994. The media and the Gulf War: Framing, priming, and the spiral of silence. Polity27:255-84.
6.
Almond, G.1950. The American people and foreign policy. New York: Harcourt Brace.
7.
Bartels, L.2002. Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions . Political Behavior24 (2): 117-50.
8.
Baum, M., and T. Groeling.2008. News media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication25:345-65.
9.
Baum, M., and T. Groeling.2009. Shot by the messenger: Partisan cues and public opinion regarding national security and war. Political Behavior31:157-86.
10.
Berinsky, A.2007. Assuming the costs of war: Events, elites, and American public support for military conflict. Journal of Politics4:975-97.
11.
Berinsky, A., and J. Druckman.2007. The polls-Review public opinion research and support for the Iraq War. Public Opinion Quarterly71:126-41.
12.
Berinsky, A., and D. Kinder.2006. Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics3:640-56.
13.
Boettcher, W., and M. Cobb.2006. Echoes of Vietnam? Body counts and public perceptions of success and failure in the war in Iraq. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, March 22-25, in San Diego, CA.
14.
Boudreau, C.2006a. Are citizens competent to perform their duties? How institutions substitute for political sophistication. Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Research Paper 07-66. http://ssrn.com/abstract=929580 (accessed on January 14, 2008 ).
15.
Boudreau, C.2006b. Are two heuristics better than one? An analysis of how citizens use multiple heuristics. Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Research Paper 07-65. http://ssrn.com/abstract=929577 (accessed on January 14, 2008).
16.
Campbell, A., P.E. Converse, W.E. Miller, and D.E. Stokes.1960. The American voter. New York: John Wiley.
17.
Converse, P.E.1964. The nature and origin of belief systems in mass publics . In Ideology and Discontent, ed. D. Apterl. (pp. 188-215). New York: The Free Press.
18.
Druckman, J., and J.W. Holmes.2004. Does presidential rhetoric matter? Priming and presidential approval. Presidential Studies Quarterly34 (4): 755-78.
19.
Eckstein, H.1975. Case study and theory in political science. In Strategies of inquiry, ed. F. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby. (pp. 79-138). Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley.
20.
Eichenberg, R.C.2005. Victory has many friends: The American public and use of military force, 1981-2004. International Security30:140-77.
21.
Feaver, P.D., and C. Gelpi.2004. Choosing your battles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
Gartner, S.2008. The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war: An experimental approach. American Political Science Review102:95-106.
23.
Gartner, S., and G. Segura.1998. War casualties and public opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution42:278-320.
24.
Gelpi, C.F., P.D. Feaver, and J. Reifler.2005/2006. Success matters: Casualty sensitivity and the war in Iraq. International Security30 (3): 7-46.
25.
Gelpi, C.F., P.D. Feaver, and J. Reifler.2009. Paying the human costs of war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Gelpi, C.F., J. Reifler, and P.D. Feaver.2007. Iraq the vote: Retrospective and prospective foreign policy judgments on candidate choice. Political Behavior2:151-74.
27.
Herrmann, R., P. Tetlock, and P. Visser.1999. Mass public decisions to go to war: A cognitiveinteractionist framework. The American Political Science Review93:553-73.
28.
Hill, S., J. Lo, L. Vavreck and J. Zaller ( 2007) "The opt-in Internet panel: Survey mode, sampling methodology and the implications for political research," Unpublished paper, Department of Political Science, UCLA.
29.
Huckfeldt, R., J. Levine, W. Morgan, and J. Sprague.1999. Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science43:888-911.
30.
Huckfeldt, R., J. Mondak, M. Craw, and J. Morehouse Mendez .2005. Making sense of candidates: Partisanship, ideology, and issues as guides to judgment. Cognitive Brain Research23:11-23.
31.
Iyengar, S., and D.R. Kinder.1987. News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Iyengar, S., and A. Simon.1993. News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Communication Research20:365-84.
33.
Jacobson GC2007. A divider, not a uniter. New York: Pearson Longman.
34.
Jentleson, B.W.1992. The pretty prudent public: Post-Vietnam American opinion on the use of military force. International Studies Quarterly36:49-73.
35.
Jentleson, B.W., and R.L. Britton.1998. Still pretty prudent: Post-cold war American public opinion on the use of military force. Journal of Conflict Resolution42:395-417.
36.
Jervis, R.1976. Perception and misperception in international politics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
Johnson, D. and D. Tierney.2006. Failing to win: Perceptions of victory and defeat in international politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
Kaufman, C.1994. Out of the lab and in to the archives: A method for testing psychological explanations of political decision making. International Studies Quarterly38:557-86.
39.
Krosnick, J.A.1990. Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior12:59-92.
40.
Krosnick, J.A., and D.R. Kinder.1990. Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review84:497-512.
41.
Kull, S., and I.M. Destler.1999. Misreading the public: The myth of the new isolationism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
42.
Larson, D.W.1985. The origins of containment: A psychological explanation . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
Larson, E.V.1996. Casualties and consensus: The historical role of casualties in domestic support for U.S. military operations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
44.
Larson, E.V.2000. Putting theory to work: Diagnosing public opinion on the U.S. intervention in Bosnia. In Being useful: Policy relevance and international relations theory, ed. M. Nincic and J. Lepgold (pp. 174-234). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
45.
Lau, R., and D. Redlawsk.2001. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science45:951-71.
46.
Layman, G.C., and T.M. Carsey.2001. Party polarization and "conflict extension" in theAmerican electorate. American Journal of Political Science46 (4):786-802.
47.
Lenz, G.2006. What politics is about. PhD diss., Princeton University.
48.
Lippmann W.1955. Essays in the public philosophy. Boston : Little Brown.
49.
Lord, C., L. Ross, and M. Lepper.1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37:2098-109.
50.
Lupia, A.1994. The effect of information on voting behavior and electoral outcomes: An experimental study of direct legislation. Public Choice71 (1): 65-86.
51.
Lupia, A., and M. McCubbins.1998. The Democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
Malhotra N., and J. Krosnick.2007. The effect of survey mode and sampling on inferences about political attitudes and behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet surveys with nonprobability samples. Political Analysis15 (3):286-323.
53.
Mendelberg, T.2001. Playing the race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
Miller, J.M., and J.A. Krosnick.2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science44:301-15.
55.
Milstein, J.1973. The Vietnam War from the 1968 Tet offensive to the 1970 Cambodian invasion. In Mathematical approaches to politics , ed. H. R. Alker Jr., K. W. Deutsch, and A. H. Stoetzel (pp. 113-136). New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.
56.
Milstein, J., and W.C. Mitchell.1968. Dynamics of the Vietnam conflict: A quantitative analysis and computer simulation. Peace Research Society (International) Papers, 10.
57.
Mondak, J.1993. Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science37:186-212.
58.
Morris, J.S.2005. "The Fox News factor." Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 10 (3):56-79.
59.
Mueller J.1971. Trends in popular support for the wars in Korea and Vietnam . American Political Science Review65:358-75.
60.
Mueller, J.E.1973. War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: John Wiley.
61.
Mueller, J.E.2005. The Iraq syndrome. Foreign Affairs84 (6): 44-54.
62.
Nincic, M.1988. The United States, the Soviet Union, and the politics of opposites. World Politics40:452-75.
63.
Nincic, M.1992. A sensible public: New perspectives on popular opinion and foreign policy. Journal of Conflict Resolution36:772-89.
64.
Page, B.I., and R.Y. Shapiro.1992. The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ foreign policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65.
Peffley, M., and J. Hurwitz.1992. International events and foreign policy beliefs: Public response to changing Soviet-U.S. relations. American Journal of Political Science36:431-61.
66.
Popkin, S.L.1991. The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
67.
Price, V., C. David, B. Goldthorpe, M.M. Roth, and J. Capella.2006. Locating the issue public: the multi-dimensional nature of engagement with health care reform. Political Behavior28 (1):33-63.
68.
Sniderman, P.M., R.A. Brody, and P.E. Tetlock.1991. Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
69.
Taber, C., and M. Lodge.2006. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50:755-69.
70.
Zaller, J.1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
Zaller, J., and S. Feldman.1992. A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science36:579-617.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
