IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v61y2024i6p985-1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nationalist propaganda and support for war in an authoritarian context: Evidence from China

Author

Listed:
  • Dongshu Liu

    (Department of Public and International Affairs & Centre for Public Affairs and Law, City University of Hong Kong)

  • Li Shao

    (Department of Political Science, School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University)

Abstract

How can autocrats boost public support for wars? Previous studies have suggested that in democracies, the public changes its war attitude either through rational cost–benefit calculations or simply by following cues from political elites. This article argues that autocrats can follow a similar logic to manipulate public support for war via nationalist propaganda. Based on two online survey experiments with textual and musical propaganda materials in mainland China, this article finds that nationalist propaganda bolsters public support for war, regarding a potential military conflict across the Taiwan Strait. Evidence shows that propaganda increases respondents’ expected return on winning wars, arousing national pride, and reducing respondents’ sensitivity to war costs. However, people’s confidence in winning a given war remains unchanged. These findings suggest that nationalist propaganda can boost support for war by increasing the perceived benefits of the war and reducing their sensitivity toward war costs without changing their perceived probability of winning. It also demonstrates that nationalist propaganda does not need to be explicit about war in order to boost war support in autocracies. This study also reveals the changing dynamic of public opinions in China regarding war for unification over the Taiwan Strait, which has significant implications for security and geopolitics in East Asia.

Suggested Citation

  • Dongshu Liu & Li Shao, 2024. "Nationalist propaganda and support for war in an authoritarian context: Evidence from China," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(6), pages 985-1001, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:61:y:2024:i:6:p:985-1001
    DOI: 10.1177/00223433231178849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433231178849
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00223433231178849?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. Mummolo, Jonathan & Peterson, Erik, 2019. "Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(2), pages 517-529, May.
    2. Bell, Mark S. & Quek, Kai, 2018. "Authoritarian Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 227-242, January.
    3. Joshua D. Kertzer & Thomas Zeitzoff, 2017. "A Bottom‐Up Theory of Public Opinion about Foreign Policy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(3), pages 543-558, July.
    4. Brutger, Ryan & Kertzer, Joshua D., 2018. "A Dispositional Theory of Reputation Costs," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(3), pages 693-724, July.
    5. Brian C. Rathbun & Rachel Stein, 2020. "Greater Goods: Morality and Attitudes toward the Use of Nuclear Weapons," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(5), pages 787-816, May.
    6. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    7. Richard C. Eichenberg & Richard J. Stoll, 2017. "The Acceptability of War and Support for Defense Spending," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(4), pages 788-813, April.
    8. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    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. Zhang, Dongcheng & Jiang, Hanchen & Qiang, Maoshan, 2023. "Public attitudes toward hydropower in China: The role of information provision and partisan identification," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Lisa Langdon Koch, 2024. "Punishment and blame: How core beliefs affect support for the use of force in a nuclear crisis," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(6), pages 649-669, November.
    3. Kiratli, Osman Sabri, 2023. "Policy Objective of Military Intervention and Public Attitudes: A Conjoint Experiment from US and Turkey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46(2), pages 1257-1279.
    4. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    5. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2019. "Immigration vs. Poverty: Causal Impact on Demand for Redistribution in a Survey Experiment," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    6. Cattaneo, Maria & Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger & Wolter, Stefan C., 2020. "Information provision and preferences for education spending: Evidence from representative survey experiments in three countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    8. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    9. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    10. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    11. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Lergetporer, Philipp & Piopiunik, Marc & Simon, Lisa, 2021. "Does the education level of refugees affect natives’ attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    13. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    14. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    15. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    16. Prather, Lauren, 2024. "Ideology at the Water’s Edge: Explaining Variation in Public Support for Foreign Aid," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    17. Bjorn Van Campenhout & David J. Spielman & Els Lecoutere, 2021. "Information and Communication Technologies to Provide Agricultural Advice to Smallholder Farmers: Experimental Evidence from Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 317-337, January.
    18. Mujtaba Ali Isani, 2021. "Methodological Problems of Using Arabic-Language Twitter as a Gauge for Arab Attitudes Toward Politics and Society," Contemporary Review of the Middle East, , vol. 8(1), pages 22-35, March.
    19. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    20. Huet-Vaughn, Emiliano & Robbett, Andrea & Spitzer, Matthew, 2019. "A taste for taxes: Minimizing distortions using political preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).

    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:joupea:v:61:y:2024:i:6:p:985-1001. 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.prio.no/ .

    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.