Casualty sensitivity among the general public has long been studied and has obtained robust empirical support. Scholars have assumed that the general public receives confirmed information about the number of casualties in war; however, the public may receive uncertain casualty information. In some cases, they may obtain new information that changes their beliefs. To shed new light on how uncertainty and updating information on casualty numbers affect public attitudes toward the use of force, a two-stage survey experiment with 1657 respondents in Japan was conducted. Findings revealed that initial uncertain information on casualty numbers has a negative impact on public attitudes toward a peacekeeping operation. The two-stage experiment provides empirical evidence that while information updating from certainty to uncertainty on casualty numbers increases public anxiety, the effects of this information updating are not significant. In contrast, information on the number of casualties updating from uncertainty to certainty has a significant impact on public support for troop withdrawal.
AldrichJHGelpiCFeaverP, et al. (2006) Foreign policy and the electoral connection. Annual Review of Political Science9: 477–502.
2.
AlmondGA (1956) Public opinion and national security. Public Opinion Quarterly20(2): 371–378.
3.
AlvarezMRFranklinCH (1994) Uncertainty and political perceptions. Journal of Politics56(3): 671–688.
4.
BergerTU (1993) From sword to chrysanthemum: Japan’s culture of anti-militarism. International Security17(4): 119–150.
5.
BerinskyAJ (2007) Assuming the costs of war: Events, elites, and American public support for military conflict. Journal of Politics69(4): 975–997.
6.
BlairJ (2017) The effect of casualty sensitivity on public support for contributing Japanese self defense forces personnel to UN peacekeeping operations: A survey experiment in Japan. Master’s Thesis, Kobe University, Japan.
7.
BoettcherWACobbMD (2006) Echoes of Vietnam? Casualty framing and public perceptions of success and failure in Iraq. Journal of Conflict Resolution50(6): 831–854.
8.
BradfordDEKayeJTCurtinJJ (2014) Not just noise: Individual differences in general startle reactivity predict startle response to uncertain and certain threat. Psychophysiology51: 407–411.
9.
BurkJ (1999) Public support for peacekeeping in Lebanon and Somalia: Assessing the casualties hypothesis. Political Science Quarterly114(1): 53–78.
DalenAVreeseCAlbækE (2017) Mediated uncertainty: The negative impact of uncertainty in economic news on consumer confidence. Public Opinion Quarterly81(1): 111–130.
12.
EllsbergD (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics75(4): 643–669.
13.
GartnerSS (1997) Strategic Assessment in War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14.
GartnerSS (2008a) The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war: An experimental approach. American Political Science Review102(1): 95–106.
15.
GartnerSS (2008b) Secondary casualty information: Casualty uncertainty, female casualties, and wartime support. Conflict Management and Peace Science25(2): 98–111.
16.
GartnerSSGelpiCF (2016) The affect and effect of images of war on individual opinion and emotions. International Interactions42(1): 172–188.
17.
GartnerSSSeguraGM (1998) War, casualties, and public opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution42(3): 278–300.
18.
GartnerSSSeguraGM (2000) Race, casualties, and opinion in the Vietnam war. Journal of Politics62(1): 115–146.
19.
GelpiCFeaverPDReiflerJ (2006) Success matters: Casualty sensitivity and the war in Iraq. International Security30(3): 7–46.
20.
GelpiCFeaverPDReiflerJ (2009) Paying the Human Costs of War: American Public Opinion and Casualties in Military Conflicts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
21.
HaasICunninghamWA (2014) The uncertainty paradox: Perceived threat moderates the effect of uncertainty on political tolerance. Political Psychology35(2): 291–302.
22.
HolstiOR (1992) Public opinion and foreign policy: Challenges to the Almond–Lippmann consensus. International Studies Quarterly36(4): 439–466.
23.
HurwitzJPeffleyM (1987) How are foreign policy attitudes structured? A hierarchical model. American Political Science Review81(4): 1099–1120.
JakobsenPVRingsmoseJ (2015) In Denmark, Afghanistan is worth dying for: How public support for the war was maintained in the face of mounting casualties and elusive success. Cooperation and Conflict50(2): 211–227.
JentlesonBW (1992) The pretty prudent public: Post post-Vietnam American opinion on the use of military force. International Studies Quarterly36(1): 49–74.
28.
KomiyaYMiyagawaMTagoA (2018) Public opinion and foreign policy: The effect of information stimulus on levels of support for foreign aid and coalition withdrawal. In: TadokoroMEgashiraSYamamotoK. (eds), Emerging Risks in a World of Heterogeneity. Evolutionary Economics and Social Complexity Science, Vol 10. Singapore: Springer, pp.135–155.
29.
KrinerDLShenFX (2014) Reassessing American casualty sensitivity: The mediating influence of inequality. Journal of conflict Resolution58(7): 1174–1201.
30.
KrosnickJA (1991) Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology5(3): 213–236.
31.
KullSRamsayC (2000) A rejoinder from Kull and Ramsay. International Studies Perspectives1(2): 202–205.
32.
LarsonEV (2000) Putting theory to work: Diagnosing public opinion on the US intervention in Bosnia. In: NincicMLepgoldJ (eds) Being Useful: Policy Relevance and International Relations Theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp.174–233.
33.
LippmannW (1925) The Phantom Public. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
34.
McGrawKMHaseckeECongerK (2003) Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluations. Political Psychology24(3): 421–448.
35.
MacKuenMWolakJKeeleL, et al. (2010) Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science54(2): 440–458.
36.
MarcusGENeumanWRMackuenM (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
MidfordP (2011) Rethinking Japanese Public Opinion and Security. California: Stanford University Press.
38.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2014) Cabinet decision on development of seamless security legislation to ensure Japan’s survival and protect its people. Available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/fp/nsp/page23e000273.html. (accessed 3 June 2017).
39.
MiuraAKobayashiT (2016) To say, or not to say ‘good-bye, mr/ms online survey panels’ (in Japanese). Journal of Media, Information and Communication1: 27–42.
40.
MuellerJE (2005) The Iraq syndrome. Foreign Affairs84(6): 44–54.
41.
MuellerJE (1973) War, Presidents and Public Opinion. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
42.
PageBIBoutonMM (2006) The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want from our Leaders but Don’t Get. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
SirinCVKochMT (2015) Dictators and death: Casualty sensitivity of autocracies in militarized interstate disputes. International Studies Quarterly59(4): 802–814.
44.
TagoA (2009) When are democratic friends unreliable? The unilateral withdrawal of troops from the ‘coalition of the willing’. Journal of Peace Research46(2): 219–234.
45.
TagoAIkedaM (2015) An ‘A’ for effort: Experimental evidence on UN Security Council engagement and support for US military action in Japan. British Journal of Political Science45(2): 391–410.
46.
TanakaSTagoAGledischKS (2017) Seeing the lexus for the olive trees? Public opinion, economic interdependence, and interstate conflict. International Interactions43(3): 375–396.
47.
TormalaZL (2016) The role of certainty (and uncertainty) in attitudes and persuasion. Current Opinion in Psychology10: 6–11.
