Norms, Diplomatic Alternatives, and the Social Psychology of War Support

Aaron M. Hoffman (), Christopher R. Agnew, Laura E. VanderDrift and Robert Kulzick
Additional contact information
Aaron M. Hoffman: Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Christopher R. Agnew: Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Laura E. VanderDrift: Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA
Robert Kulzick: Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2015, vol. 59, issue 1, 3-28

Abstract: Using experiments, we show that subjects who are asked about their support for war without being told about diplomatic strategies to deal with crises back military operations at levels consistent with people who are told that the alternatives to war are of low quality. In contrast, subjects who are told that diplomacy could work to resolve conflicts express less support for military operations. These results suggest that, in the absence of conflicting evidence, people premise their support for war on the assumption that leaders use force as a last resort. Implications for the study of success as an influence on public attitudes about US military operations are considered.

Keywords: war support; public opinion; success; experiments; social psychology (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/59/1/3.abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:jocore:v:59:y:2015:i:1:p:3-28

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Conflict Resolution from Peace Science Society (International)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().