IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v67y2023i4p587-616.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inconstant Care: Public Attitudes Towards Force Protection and Civilian Casualties in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel

Author

Listed:
  • Janina Dill
  • Scott D. Sagan
  • Benjamin Valentino

Abstract

The choice between protecting friendly soldiers or foreign civilians is a critical strategic dilemma faced in modern war. Prevailing theories suggest that casualties among both groups depress war support in Western democratic societies. Yet we know little about how ordinary citizens balance force protection and civilian casualty avoidance, and whether public opinion differs across Western democracies. Using survey experiments, we test three micro-foundations for what we call individuals’ “harm-transfer preferences:†self-interest, perception of soldiers’ consent to risk-taking, and nationalism. We find that respondents’ perception of soldiers’ consent and respondents’ nationalism explain individual-level variation in harm-transfer preferences. Moreover, Israeli citizens are significantly more likely than American or British citizens to prefer protecting friendly forces over avoiding foreign civilian casualties. This is associated with higher levels of nationalism and the perceptions that soldiers do not consent to risking their lives in Israel compared to the United States and the United Kingdom.

Suggested Citation

  • Janina Dill & Scott D. Sagan & Benjamin Valentino, 2023. "Inconstant Care: Public Attitudes Towards Force Protection and Civilian Casualties in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(4), pages 587-616, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:67:y:2023:i:4:p:587-616
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027221119768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027221119768
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027221119768?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. Tomz, Michael & Weeks, Jessica L.P. & Yarhi-Milo, Keren, 2020. "Public Opinion and Decisions About Military Force in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 119-143, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Lyall, Jason & Blair, Graeme & Imai, Kosuke, 2013. "Explaining Support for Combatants during Wartime: A Survey Experiment in Afghanistan," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(4), pages 679-705, November.
    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. Vanden Eynde, Oliver & Fetzer, Thiemo & Souza, Pedro CL & Wright, Austin L., 2021. "Losing on the Home Front? Battlefield Casualties, Media, and Public Support for Foreign Interventions," CEPR Discussion Papers 16102, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Gomez, Miguel Alberto & Winger, Gregory, 2023. "Public Opinion and Alliance Commitments in Cybersecurity: An Attack Against All?," SocArXiv bcwhu, Center for Open Science.
    3. Francesco Amodio & Leonardo Baccini & Michele Di Maio, 2021. "Security, Trade, and Political Violence," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-37.
    4. Viktor BOCHARNIKOV & Sergey SVESHNIKOV & Stepan VOZNYAK & Vladimir YUZEFOVICH, 2010. "Model For Revelation Of Unfriendly Information Impacts In Mass-Media Which Are Directed On Change Of Public Opinion," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2(1), pages 21-38, March.
    5. Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2008. "Secondary Casualty Information: Casualty Uncertainty, Female Casualties, and Wartime Support," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(2), pages 98-111, April.
    6. Idean Salehyan, 2010. "The Delegation of War to Rebel Organizations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 493-515, June.
    7. Gustav Agneman, 2022. "Conflict Victimization and Civilian Obedience: Evidence from Colombia," HiCN Working Papers 379, Households in Conflict Network.
    8. Christopher W. Blair & Jonathan A. Chu & Joshua A. Schwartz, 2022. "The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 677-703, May.
    9. Akisato Suzuki & Djordje Stefanovic & Neophytos Loizides, 2021. "Displacement and the expectation of political violence: Evidence from Bosnia," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 561-579, September.
    10. Geys, Benny, 2010. "War casualties and US presidential popularity: A comparison of the Korean, Vietnam and Iraq war," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2010-05, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    11. Miguel R. Rueda, 2017. "Popular Support, Violence, and Territorial Control in Civil War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(8), pages 1626-1652, September.
    12. Pedro C. Vicente & Ines Vilela, 2020. "Preventing violent Islamic radicalization: experimental evidence on anti-social behavior," NOVAFRICA Working Paper Series wp2008, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics, NOVAFRICA.
    13. Benjamin Krick & Jonathan Petkun & Mara Revkin, 2023. "What Determines Military Legitimacy? Evidence from the Battle of Mosul in Iraq," HiCN Working Papers 402, Households in Conflict Network.
    14. Lars-Erik Cederman & Simon Hug & Livia I. Schubiger & Francisco Villamil, 2020. "Civilian Victimization and Ethnic Civil War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(7-8), pages 1199-1225, August.
    15. Vicente, Pedro C. & Vilela, Inês, 2022. "Preventing Islamic radicalization: Experimental evidence on anti-social behavior," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 474-485.
    16. Stefanie Walter, 2021. "EU‐27 Public Opinion on Brexit," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 569-588, May.
    17. Daphna Canetti & Julia Elad-Strenger & Iris Lavi & Dana Guy & Daniel Bar-Tal, 2017. "Exposure to Violence, Ethos of Conflict, and Support for Compromise," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(1), pages 84-113, January.
    18. Gehring, Kai & Langlotz, Sarah & Kienberger, Stefan, 2018. "Stimulant or depressant? Resource-related income shocks and conflict," Working Papers 0652, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    19. Aila M Matanock & Natalia Garbiras-Díaz, 2018. "Considering concessions: A survey experiment on the Colombian peace process," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(6), pages 637-655, November.
    20. Berman, Eli & Callen, Michael & Gibson, Clark C. & Long, James D. & Rezaee, Arman, 2019. "Election fairness and government legitimacy in Afghanistan," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 292-317.

    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:67:y:2023:i:4:p:587-616. 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.