IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/290177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy Objective of Military Intervention and Public Attitudes: A Conjoint Experiment from US and Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Kiratli, Osman Sabri

Abstract

This paper scrutinizes the role of the principal policy objective of military intervention in conditioning citizen attitudes for the use of force. Extending the scope of analysis beyond the independent effects, it next assesses how the effects of two core variables of intervention, namely international organizations’ approval of the operation and the regime type of the target country, vary for interventions with differing mandates. The results of the conjoint experiment in two dissimilar cases, the US and Turkey, show that despite substantial changes in relative support for different types of operations, policy objective is still a highly potent determinant of individual attitudes. The results also concur that compared to foreign policy restraint and humanitarian missions, individuals are more sensitive to international organizations’ endorsements of the use of force for peace and internal political change operations. Finally, individuals are significantly disapproving of operations that seek internal political changes in democratic targets, though in contrast to the democratic peace theory, for other types of interventions, they are indifferent to the regime type of the opponent.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, issue Latest Ar.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:290177
    DOI: 10.1007/s11109-023-09871-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/290177/1/Full-text-article-Kiratli-Policy-Objective.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11109-023-09871-0?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. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2015. "Competency Costs in Foreign Affairs: Presidential Performance in International Conflicts and Domestic Legislative Success, 1953–2001," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(2), pages 440-456, February.
    2. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    3. Lake, David A., 1992. "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 24-37, March.
    4. Perla, Héctor, 2011. "Explaining Public Support for the Use of Military Force: The Impact of Reference Point Framing and Prospective Decision Making," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(1), pages 139-167, January.
    5. Dixon, William J., 1994. "Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 14-32, March.
    6. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Siverson, Randolph M., 1995. "War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 841-855, December.
    7. Tomz, Michael R. & Weeks, Jessica L. P., 2013. "Public Opinion and the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(4), pages 849-865, November.
    8. Voeten, Erik, 2005. "The Political Origins of the UN Security Council's Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(3), pages 527-557, July.
    9. Kertzer, Joshua D & Renshon, Jonathan & Yarhi-Milo, Keren, 2021. "How Do Observers Assess Resolve? – CORRIGENDUM," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 1356-1356, July.
    10. Kertzer, Joshua D & Renshon, Jonathan & Yarhi-Milo, Keren, 2021. "How Do Observers Assess Resolve?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 308-330, January.
    11. Schultz, Kenneth A., 2010. "The Enforcement Problem in Coercive Bargaining: Interstate Conflict over Rebel Support in Civil Wars," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 281-312, April.
    12. 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.
    13. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Morrow, James D. & Siverson, Randolph M. & Smith, Alastair, 1999. "An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 791-807, December.
    14. Helen Milner & Dustin Tingley, 2013. "The choice for multilateralism: Foreign aid and American foreign policy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 313-341, September.
    15. Dafoe, Allan & Zhang, Baobao & Caughey, Devin, 2018. "Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(4), pages 399-416, October.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Jason Brownlee, 2020. "Cognitive Shortcuts and Public Support for Intervention," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(2-3), pages 261-289, February.
    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. Chojnacki, Sven, 2003. "Demokratien und Krieg: Das Konfliktverhalten demokratischer Staaten im internationalen System, 1946-2001," Discussion Papers, Research Group International Politics P 03-304, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    3. Kenneth A. Schultz, 2001. "Looking for Audience Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 32-60, February.
    4. Michael Mousseau, 2005. "Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 63-77, February.
    5. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    7. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    8. William Reed & David H. Clark, 2000. "War Initiators and War Winners," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(3), pages 378-395, June.
    9. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita & Michael T. Koch & Randolph M. Siverson, 2004. "Testing Competing Institutional Explanations of the Democratic Peace: The Case of Dispute Duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(4), pages 255-267, September.
    10. H. E. Goemans, 2000. "Fighting for Survival," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(5), pages 555-579, October.
    11. William J. Dixon & Paul D. Senese, 2002. "Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 547-571, August.
    12. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.
    13. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.
    14. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    15. Viskupič Filip, 2020. "More Valuable than Blood and Treasure? Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Status on Domestic Preferences for Military Intervention," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 1-20, December.
    16. Michael Horowitz & Dan Reiter, 2001. "When Does Aerial Bombing Work?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(2), pages 147-173, April.
    17. Adamson, Jordan, 2020. "Political institutions, resources, and war: Theory and evidence from ancient Rome," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    18. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita & Randolph M. Siverson, 1997. "Nasty or Nice?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 175-199, February.
    19. Conconi, Paola & Sahuguet, Nicolas & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2018. "Electoral incentives, term limits, and the sustainability of peace," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 15-26.
    20. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How Does Democratic Accountability Shape International Cooperation?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 28-55, February.

    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:zbw:espost:290177. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.