This article is concerned with the role of perceived policy objectives in German citizens’ attitude formation toward military action in Afghanistan. While some scholars have claimed that public opinion is prudent because citizens assess the effectiveness of a mission on the basis of these perceptions, micro-level tests of this kind of prudence remain scare. Drawing on two cross-sectional surveys of the German population conducted in 2008 and 2009, we use responses to open-ended questions about the German government’s policy goals in Afghanistan to analyze whether such perceptions influenced support and whether any such influence was mediated via the perceived effectiveness of the mission. The results indicate that, irrespective of the level of political awareness, it was virtually irrelevant what German citizens perceived the military mission’s objectives to be. In contrast, value-based attitude formation emerges as more important, with the foreign policy predispositions antimilitarism and Atlanticism exhibiting especially large effects.
AchenChristopher H.BartelsLarry M.. 2006. “It Feels Like We’re Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter and Electoral Democracy.” Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 30-September 3, 2006.
2.
AsmusRonald D.EvertsPhilip P.IserniaPierangelo. 2005. “The Transatlantic Gap in Public Opinion.” In Transatlantische Beziehungen. Sicherheit - Wirtschaft - Öffentlichkeit, edited by JägerThomasHöseAlexanderOppermannKai, 397–424. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
3.
BaumannRainerHellmannGunther. 2001. “Germany and the Use of Force: ‘Total War’, the ‘Culture of Restaint’ and the Quest for Normality.” German Politics10:61–82.
4.
BerinskyAdam J.2009. In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BerinskyAdam J.DruckmanJames N.. 2007. “The Polls - Review: Public Opinion Research and Support for the Iraq War.” Public Opinion Quarterly71:126–41.
6.
ChittickWilliam O.BillingsleyKeith R.TravisRick. 1995. “A Three-dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs.” International Studies Quarterly39:313–31.
7.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.. 2007. “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments.” Journal of Communication57:99–118.
8.
ConversePhilip E.1970. “Attitudes and Non-attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue.” In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, edited by TufteEdward R., 168–89. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9.
Dalgaard-NielsenAnja. 2006. Germany, Pacifism and Peace Enforcement. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
10.
DruryA. CooperMarvin OverbyL.AngAdrianLiYtan. 2010. ““Pretty Prudent” or Rhetorically Responsive? The American Public’s Support for Military Action.” Political Research Quarterly63:83–96.
11.
EichenbergRichard C.2005. “Victory Has Many Friends: U.S. Public Opinion and the Use of Military Force, 1981-2005.” International Security30:140–77.
12.
FazioRussell H.2007. “Attitudes as Object-evaluation Associations of Varying Strength.” Social Cognition25:603–37.
13.
FeldmanStanley. 1988. “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values.” American Journal of Political Science32:416–40.
14.
FinnemoreMartha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
15.
FletcherJoseph F.BastedoHeatherHoveJennifer. 2009. “Losing Heart: Declining Support and the Political Marketing of the Afghanistan Mission.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique42:911–37.
16.
GainesBrian J.KuklinskiJames H.QuirkPaul J.PeytonBuddyVerkuilenJay. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” The Journal of Politics69:957–74.
17.
GelpiChristopherFeaverPeter D.ReiflerJason. 2009. Paying the Human Cost of War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
GorenPaul. 2012. “Political Values and Political Awareness.” Critical Review24:505–25.
19.
HellmannGuntherWeberChristianSauerFrank, eds. 2008. Die Semantik der neuen deutschen Außenpolitik: Eine Analyse des außenpolitischen Vokabulars seit Mitte der 1980er Jahre. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
20.
HerrmannRichard K.TetlockPhilip E.VisserPenny S.. 1999. “Mass Public Decisions to Go to War: A Cognitive-interactionist Framework.” The American Political Science Review93:553–73.
21.
HurwitzJonPeffleyMark A.. 1987. “How Are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model.” The American Political Science Review81:1099–120.
22.
JedingerAlexanderMaderMatthias. 2015. “Predispositions, Mission-specific Beliefs, and Public Support for Military Missions: The Case of the German ISAF Mission in Afghanistan.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research27:90–110.
23.
JentlesonBruce W.1992. “The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force.” International Studies Quarterly36:49–74.
24.
JentlesonBruce W.BrittonRebecca L.. 1998. “Still Pretty Prudent: Post-cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force.” Journal of Conflict Resolution42:395–417.
25.
JuhászZoltán. 2001. “German Public Opinion and the Use of Force in the Early 1990s.” In Public Opinion and the International Use of Force, edited by EvertsPhilipIserniaPierangelo, 57–85. London, UK: Routledge.
26.
LonghurstKerry. 2004. Germany and the Use of Force: The Evolution of German Security Policy 1990-2003. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
27.
MacKinnonDavid P.LockwoodChondra M.WilliamsJason. 2004. “Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods.” Multivariate Behavioral Research39:99–128.
28.
MaderMatthiasPötzschkeJana. 2014. “National Identities and Mass Belief Systems on Foreign and Security Policy in Germany.” German Politics23:59–77.
29.
MaderMatthiasSchoenHarald. 2013. “Alles eine Frage des Blickwinkels? Framingeffekte und Bevölkerungsurteile über einen möglichen Bundeswehreinsatz in Libyen.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen20:5–34.
30.
MüllerHaraldWolffJonas. 2011. “Demokratischer Krieg am Hindukusch? Eine kritische Analyse der Bundestagsdebatten zur deutschen Afghanistanpolitik 2001–2011.” Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik4:197–221.
31.
OnealJohn R.LianBradJoynerJames H.Jr1996. “Are the American People “Pretty Prudent”? Public Responses to U.S. Uses of Force, 1950-1988.” International Studies Quarterly40:261–79.
32.
PeffleyMark A.HurwitzJon. 1993. “Models of Attitude Constraint in Foreign Affairs.” Political Behavior15:61–90.
33.
RahnWendy M.Krosnick JonA.BreuningMarijke. 1994. “Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science38:582–600.
34.
ReiflerJasonClarkeHarold D.ScottoThomas J.SandersDavidStewartMarianne C.WhiteleyPaul. 2014. “Prudence, Principle and Minimal Heuristics: British Public Opinion Toward the Use of Military Force in Afghanistan and Libya.” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations16:28–55.
35.
SchreerBenjamin. 2012. “The Evolution of NATO’s Strategy in Afghanistan.” In Pursuing Strategy: NATO Operations from the Gulf to Gaddafi, edited by EdströmHakanGyllensporreDennis, 139–56. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
36.
SchröerArne. 2014. “Lessons Learned? German Security Policy and the War in Afghanistan.” German Politics23:78–102.
37.
SuhrkeAstri. 2008. “A Contradictory Mission? NATO from Stabilization to Combat in Afghanistan.” International Peacekeeping15:214–36.
38.
TaberCharles S.LodgeMilton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science50:755–69.
39.
von BredowWilfried. 2011. “Germany in Afghanistan: The Pitfalls of Peace-building in National and International Perspective.” Res Militaris2:1–13.
40.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
