IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v63y2019i1p251-281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Civilian Casualties and Public Support for Military Action: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Johns
  • Graeme A. M. Davies

Abstract

In contrast to the expansive literature on military casualties and support for war, we know very little about public reactions to foreign civilian casualties. This article, based on representative sample surveys in the United States and Britain, reports four survey experiments weaving information about civilian casualties into vignettes about Western military action. These produce consistent evidence of civilian casualty aversion: where death tolls were higher, support for force was invariably and significantly lower. Casualty effects were moderate in size but robust across our two cases and across different scenarios. They were also strikingly resistant to moderation by other factors manipulated in the experiments, such as the framing of casualties or their religious affiliation. The importance of numbers over even strongly humanizing frames points toward a utilitarian rather than a social psychological model of casualty aversion. Either way, civilian casualties deserve a more prominent place in the literature on public support for war.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Johns & Graeme A. M. Davies, 2019. "Civilian Casualties and Public Support for Military Action: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(1), pages 251-281, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:63:y:2019:i:1:p:251-281
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002717729733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002717729733
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002717729733?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. Schenker N. & Gentleman J. F., 2001. "On Judging the Significance of Differences by Examining the Overlap Between Confidence Intervals," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 55, pages 182-186, August.
    2. Transue, John E. & Lee, Daniel J. & Aldrich, John H., 2009. "Treatment Spillover Effects across Survey Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 143-161, April.
    3. Unknown, 2014. "Media Coverage 2014," 2014: Ethics, Efficiency and Food Security: Feeding the 9 Billion, Well, 26-28 August 2014 225573, Crawford Fund.
    4. Small, Deborah A & Loewenstein, George, 2003. "Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 5-16, January.
    5. Stephen A. Borrelli & Brad Lockerbie, 2008. "Framing Effects on Public Opinion During Prewar and Major Combat Phases of the U.S. Wars with Iraq," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(2), pages 502-522, June.
    6. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    7. Luke N. Condra & Jacob N. Shapiro, 2012. "Who Takes the Blame? The Strategic Effects of Collateral Damage," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(1), pages 167-187, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    10. Herrmann, Richard K. & Tetlock, Philip E. & Visser, Penny S., 1999. "Mass Public Decisions on Go to War: A Cognitive-Interactionist Framework," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 553-573, September.
    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. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    2. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    3. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    4. Cryder, Cynthia E. & Loewenstein, George & Scheines, Richard, 2013. "The donor is in the details," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 15-23.
    5. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    6. Pellegrin, Claire & Grolleau, Gilles & Mzoughi, Naoufel & Napoleone, Claude, 2018. "Does the Identifiable Victim Effect Matter for Plants? Results From a Quasi-experimental Survey of French Farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 106-113.
    7. Small, Deborah A., 2010. "Reference-dependent sympathy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 151-160, July.
    8. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:60-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Huber, Michaela & Van Boven, Leaf & McGraw, A. Peter & Johnson-Graham, Laura, 2011. "Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 283-293, July.
    11. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    12. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    13. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Heizler, Odelia & Israeli, Osnat, 2021. "The identifiable victim effect and public opinion toward immigration; a natural experiment study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Pinar Yildirim & Andrei Simonov & Maria Petrova & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2024. "Are Political and Charitable Giving Substitutes? Evidence from the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 8030-8043, November.
    18. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    19. Adena, Maja & Hager, Anselm, 2020. "Does online fundraising increase charitable giving? A nation-wide field experiment on Facebook," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-302, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Saccardo, Silvia & Li, Charis X. & Samek, Anya & Gneezy, Ayelet, 2021. "Nudging generosity in consumer elective pricing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 91-104.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:492-502 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2011. "Let Me See You! A Video Experiment on the Social Dimension of Risk Preferences," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(2), pages 211-225, August.
    23. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    24. Metzger, Laura & Günther, Isabel, 2019. "Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 18-33.

    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:jocore:v:63:y:2019:i:1:p:251-281. 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://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.