Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-wr4x4 Total loading time: 0.466 Render date: 2023-01-31T19:43:52.689Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Explaining Public Support for the Use of Military Force: The Impact of Reference Point Framing and Prospective Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2011

Héctor Perla Jr.
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz. E-mail: hperla@ucsc.edu
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the determinants of public support for the use of military force. It puts forward a Framing Theory of Policy Objectives (FTPO), which contends that public support for military engagements depends on the public's perception of the policy's objective. However, it is difficult for the public to judge a policy's objective because they cannot directly observe a policy's true intention and influential political actors offer competing frames to define it. This framing contestation, carried out through the media, sets the public's decision-making reference point and determines whether the policy is perceived as seeking to avoid losses or to achieve gains. The FTPO predicts that support will increase when the public perceives policies as seeking to prevent losses and decrease when the public judges policies to be seeking gains. I operationalize and test the theory using content analysis of national news coverage and opinion polls of U.S. intervention in Central America during the 1980s. These framing effects are found to hold regardless of positive or negative valence of media coverage.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Banerjee, Mousumi, Capozzoli, Michelle, McSweeney, Laura, and Sinha, Debajyoti. 1999. Beyond Kappa: A Review of Interrater Agreement Measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics 27 (1):323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Matthew A. 2002. The Constituent Foundations of the Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon. International Studies Quarterly 46 (2):263–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, Matthew A. 2004. How Public Opinion Constrains the Use of Force: The Case of Operation Restore Hope. Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (2):187226.Google Scholar
Bayard de Volo, Lorraine. 2001. Mothers of Heroes and Martyrs: Gender Identity Politics in Nicaragua, 1979–1999. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Richard A. 1991. Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 2003. The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56 (1):2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007. Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. American Political Science Review 101 (4):637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, Christian, and Ball, Patrick. 2002. Views to a Kill: Exploring the Implications of Source Selection in the Case of Guatemalan State Terror, 1977–1995. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (3):427–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Darren W., and Silver, Brian D.. 2004. Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science 48 (1):2846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001a. The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence. Political Behavior 23 (3):225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001b. On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? Journal of Politics 63 (4):1041–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004a. Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election. Political Psychology 25 (4):577–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004b. Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects. American Political Science Review 98 (4):671–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. Case Study and Theory in Political Science. In Handbook of Political Science. Vol. 7, Strategies of Inquiry, edited by Greenstein, Fred I. and Polsby, Nelson W., 79137. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 2003. Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House's Frame After 9/11. Political Communication 20 (4):415–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1976. The Relationship Between Public Opinion and State Policy: A New Look Based on Some Forgotten Data. American Journal of Political Science 20 (1):2536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven E. 1993. Reexamining the “Minimal Effects” Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns. Journal of Politics 55 (1):121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foyle, Douglas C. 1999. Counting the Public in: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gartner, Scott Sigmund, and Segura, Gary M.. 1998. War, Casualties, and Public Opinion. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (3):278300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelpi, Christopher. 2006. The Costs of War: How Many Casualties Will Americans Tolerate? Foreign Affairs 85 (1):139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelpi, Christopher, Feaver, Peter, and Reifler, Jason. 2006. Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq. International Security 30 (3):746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliam, Franklin D. Jr., and Iyengar, Shanto. 2000. Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public. American Journal of Political Science 44 (3):560–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groeling, Tim, and Baum, Matthew A.. 2008. Crossing the Water's Edge: Elite Rhetoric, Media Coverage and the Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon. Journal of Politics 70 (4):1065–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guidry, John A., and Sawyer, Mark Q.. 2003. Contentious Pluralism: The Public Sphere and Democracy. Perspectives on Politics 1 (2):273–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, William G., and Pevehouse, Jon C.. 2005. Presidents, Congress, and the Use of Force. International Organization 59 (1):209–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, William G., and Pevehouse, Jon C.. 2007. When Congress Stops Wars. Partisan Politics and Presidential Power. Foreign Affairs 86 (5):95107.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1987. Television News and Citizens' Explanations of National Affairs. American Political Science Review 81 (3):815–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Peters, Mark D., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1982. Experimental Demonstrations of the “Not-So-Minimal” Political Consequences of Television News Programs. American Political Science Review 76 (4):848–58.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Kinder, Donald R., Peters, Mark D., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 1984. The Evening News and Presidential Evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (4):778–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jentleson, Bruce W. 1992. The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force. International Studies Quarterly 36 (1):4973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jentleson, Bruce W., and Britton, Rebecca. 1998. Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (4):395417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 2006. Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: The Case of Iraq. Journal of Strategic Studies 29 (1):352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, Donald L., and Page, Benjamin I.. 1992. Shaping Foreign Policy Opinions: The Role of TV News. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (2):227–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47 (2):263–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1984. Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist 39 (4):341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 2000. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, Margaret, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1990. Altering the Foundations of Support for the President Through Priming. American Political Science Review 84 (2):497512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Eric V. 1996. Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.Google Scholar
Lee, Taeku. 2002. Mobilizing Public Opinion: Black Insurgency and Racial Attitudes in the Civil Rights Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1992. Prospect Theory and International Relations: Theoretical Applications and Analytical Problems. Political Psychology 13 (2):283310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1996. Loss Aversion, Framing, and Bargaining: The Implications of Prospect Theory for International Conflict. International Political Science Review 17 (2):179–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack S. 1997. Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 41 (1):87112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockerbie, Brad, and Borrelli, Stephen A.. 1990. Question Wording and Public Support for Contra Aid, 1983–1986. Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (2):195208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2004. Political Psychology in International Relations. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mueller, John E. 2005. The Iraq Syndrome. Foreign Affairs 84 (6):4454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Ornstein, Norman, Kohut, Andrew, and McCarthy, Larry. 1988. The People, the Press, and Politics: The Times-Mirror Study of the American Electorate. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1983. Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. American Political Science Review 77 (1):175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., Shapiro, Robert Y., and Dempsey, Glenn R.. 1987. What Moves Public Opinion? American Political Science Review 81 (1):2344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perla, Héctor Jr. 2005. Revolutionary Deterrence: The Sandinista Response to Reagan's Coercive Policy Against Nicaragua. Lessons Toward a Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Perla, Héctor Jr. 2008a. Si Nicaragua Venció, El Salvador Vencerá: Central American Agency in the Creation of the U.S.–Central American Peace and Solidarity Movement. Latin American Research Review 43 (2):136–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perla, Héctor Jr. 2008b. Grassroots Mobilization Against US Military Intervention in El Salvador. Socialism and Democracy 22 (3):143–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perla, Héctor Jr. 2009. Heirs of Sandino: The Nicaraguan Revolution and the U.S.–Nicaragua Solidarity Movement. Latin American Perspectives 36 (6):80100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perla, Héctor Jr. 2010a. Transnational Public Diplomacy: Assessing Salvadoran Revolutionary Efforts to Build U.S. Public Opposition to Reagan's Central American Policy. In The United States and Public Diplomacy: New Directions in Cultural and International History, edited by Osgood, Kenneth and Etheridge, Brian, 165–91. Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perla, Héctor Jr. 2010b. Revolutionary Deterrence: U.S. Coercion and Transnational Resistance by Sandinista Nicaragua. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Powlick, Philip J., and Katz, Andrew Z.. 1998. Defining the American Public Opinion/Foreign Policy Nexus. Mershon International Studies Review 42 (1):2961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quattrone, George A., and Tversky, Amos. 1988. Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice. American Political Science Review 82 (3):719–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, William I. 1996. Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, U.S. Intervention, and Hegemony. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce, and Nincic, Miroslav. 1976. American Opinion on the Use of Military Force Abroad. Political Science Quarterly 91 (3):411–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Elizabeth N. 2009. Transformative Choices: Leaders and the Origins of Intervention Strategy. International Security 34 (2):119–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Page, Benjamin I.. 1988. Foreign Policy and the Rational Public. Journal of Conflict Resolution 32 (2):211–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Conover, Pamela Johnston. 1981. The Dynamics of Presidential Support During International Conflict Situations: The Iranian Hostage Crisis. Political Behavior 3 (4):303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, Richard. 2001. The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy Since Vietnam: Constraining the Colossus. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorrentino, Richard M., and Vidmar, Neil. 1974. Impact of Events: Short- vs. Long-Term Effects of a Crisis. Public Opinion Quarterly 38 (2):271–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211 (4481):453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of State. 1981. Communist Interference in El Salvador: Documents Demonstrating Communist Support of the Salvadoran Insurgency. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., Hutchings, Vincent L., and White, Ismail K.. 2002. Cues that Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns. American Political Science Review 96 (1):7590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viterna, Jocelyn S. 2006. Pulled, Pushed, and Persuaded: Explaining Women's Mobilization into the Salvadoran Guerrilla Army. American Journal of Sociology 112 (1):145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Thomas W. 2003. Nicaragua: Living in the Shadow of the Eagle. 4th ed.Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2003. Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Explaining Public Support for the Use of Military Force: The Impact of Reference Point Framing and Prospective Decision Making
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Explaining Public Support for the Use of Military Force: The Impact of Reference Point Framing and Prospective Decision Making
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Explaining Public Support for the Use of Military Force: The Impact of Reference Point Framing and Prospective Decision Making
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *