IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v22y2019i3p258-276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Casualty sensitivity in Japan: Information underlying certainty and uncertainty

Author

Listed:
  • Yoshitaka Komiya

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoshitaka Komiya, 2019. "Casualty sensitivity in Japan: Information underlying certainty and uncertainty," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 258-276, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:22:y:2019:i:3:p:258-276
    DOI: 10.1177/2233865919833978
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865919833978
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2233865919833978?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scott Sigmund Gartner & Christopher F. Gelpi, 2016. "The Affect and Effect of Images of War on Individual Opinion and Emotions," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 172-188, January.
    2. Tago, Atsushi & Ikeda, Maki, 2015. "An ‘A’ for Effort: Experimental Evidence on UN Security Council Engagement and Support for US Military Action in Japan," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(2), pages 391-410, April.
    3. Hurwitz, Jon & Peffley, Mark, 1987. "How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1099-1120, December.
    4. Seiki Tanaka & Atsushi Tago & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, 2017. "Seeing the Lexus for the Olive Trees? Public Opinion, Economic Interdependence, and Interstate Conflict," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(3), pages 375-396, May.
    5. Michael MacKuen & Jennifer Wolak & Luke Keele & George E. Marcus, 2010. "Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 440-458, April.
    6. Gartner, Scott Sigmund, 2008. "The Multiple Effects of Casualties on Public Support for War: An Experimental Approach," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 95-106, February.
    7. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    2. Dukhong Kim, 2014. "Affect and Public Support for Military Action," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, December.
    3. David H. Bearce & Thomas R. Cook, 2018. "The first image reversed: IGO signals and mass political attitudes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 595-619, December.
    4. R. Urbatsch, 2010. "Isolationism and Domestic Politics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 471-492, June.
    5. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    6. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    7. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    8. Simona Fabrizi & Steffen Lippert & Addison Pan & Matthew Ryan, 2022. "A theory of unanimous jury voting with an ambiguous likelihood," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 399-425, October.
    9. Kiyohiko G. Nishimura & Hiroyuki Ozaki, 2001. "Search under the Knightian Uncertainty," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-112, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    10. Liu, Hui-hui & Song, Yao-yao & Liu, Xiao-xiao & Yang, Guo-liang, 2020. "Aggregating the DEA prospect cross-efficiency with an application to state key laboratories in China," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    11. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    12. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    13. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Attanasi, Giuseppe Marco & Montesano, Aldo, 2010. "The Price for Information about Probabilities and its Relation with Capacities," TSE Working Papers 10-193, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Vassili Vergopoulos, 2014. "A Behavioral Definition of States of the World," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 14047, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    16. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    17. He, Wei & Yannelis, Nicholas C., 2015. "Equilibrium theory under ambiguity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 86-95.
    18. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    19. Woo-kyoung Ahn & Sunnie S. Y. Kim & Kristen Kim & Peter K. McNally, 2019. "Which grades are better, A’s and C’s, or all B’s? Effects of variability in grades on mock college admissions decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(6), pages 696-710, November.
    20. Schumacher Johannes M., 2018. "Distortion risk measures, ROC curves, and distortion divergence," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 35(1-2), pages 35-50, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:22:y:2019:i:3:p:258-276. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.