IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i5p1761-1772.html

Generating Support for a Hypothetical War: Presidential Cues and Justifications

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Gooch

Abstract

Objective Support for wars that involve the United States typically divides by party identification among American voters, leading many scholars to believe that voters need only a partisan cue to go along with war. However, presidents do not endorse war in isolation; instead, they justify it with a variety of reasons ranging from minimal to extensive. Causally identifying these factors—partisan cues and justifications—can be challenging because (1) both occur simultaneously and (2) measured opinion on war usually occurs after the public has been exposed to both. Method This study leverages experimental evidence that randomizes presidential cues (an actual sitting president) and justifications about a hypothetical (and unnecessary) war in which elites have not staked out positions. Results Results show that a presidential endorsement alone does not generate support for a hypothetical war, but the inclusion of a justification, even one that is minimal, can increase support for war and improve presidential approval. Overall support still remains low for a hypothetical war and is concentrated among in‐partisans. Conclusion These results imply that a segment of the American public will go along with war, but the reach is limited to their own party.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Gooch, 2020. "Generating Support for a Hypothetical War: Presidential Cues and Justifications," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1761-1772, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:5:p:1761-1772
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12849
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12849?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. repec:cup:apsrev:v:64:y:1970:i:01:p:18-34_12 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    3. Michaela Mattes & Jessica L. P. Weeks, 2019. "Hawks, Doves, and Peace: An Experimental Approach," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(1), pages 53-66, January.
    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. Tabellini, Marco & Bordalo, Pedro & Yang, David, 2020. "Stereotypes and Politics," CEPR Discussion Papers 14617, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    2. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    3. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    4. Marie-Therese Meye, 2025. "Why some districts march more: Protest mobilization in the wake of US representatives’ election denial," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(5), pages 1463-1478, September.
    5. Romana Careja, 2016. "Party Discourse and Prejudiced Attitudes toward Migrants in Western Europe at the Beginning of the 2000s," International Migration Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(3), pages 599-627, September.
    6. William G. Nomikos & Dahjin Kim & Gechun Lin, 2025. "American social media users have ideological differences of opinion about the War in Ukraine," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-7, December.
    7. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    8. Baiba Witajewska-Baltvilka, 2018. "Political parties and climate change policy: why do parties sometimes talk about it, but sometimes keep silent," IBS Working Papers 05/2018, Instytut Badan Strukturalnych.
    9. Inken Borzyskowski & Felicity Vabulas, 2024. "Public support for withdrawal from international organizations: Experimental evidence from the US," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 809-845, October.
    10. Jetter, Michael & Molina, Teresa, 2022. "Persuasive agenda-setting: Rodrigo Duterte’s inauguration speech and drugs in the Philippines," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    11. Benjamin T. Toll, 2019. "A Paradox in Polarization? Cross‐pressured Representatives and the Missing Incentive to Moderate," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 182(1), pages 61-96, March.
    12. Kayla S. Canelo, 2022. "Citations to Interest Groups and Acceptance of Supreme Court Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 189-222, March.
    13. Eva‐Maria Trüdinger & Achim Hildebrandt & Sebastian Jäckle & Jonas Löser, 2021. "Responding to Policy Signals? An Experimental Study on Information about Policy Adoption and Data Retention Policy Support in Germany," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(2), pages 830-843, March.
    14. Ajzenman, Nicolás & Ardanaz, Martín & Cruces, Guillermo & Feierherd, Germán & Lunghi, Ignacio, 2024. "Unraveling the Paradox of Anticorruption Messaging: Experimental Evidence from a Tax Administration Reform," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13555, Inter-American Development Bank.
    15. J. S. Maloy, 2015. "Intermediate Conditions of Democratic Accountability: A Response to Electoral Skepticism," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 76-89.
    16. Daniel J. Galvin, 2020. "Let’s not conflate APD with political history, and other reflections on “Causal Inference and American Political Development”," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(3), pages 485-500, December.
    17. Ahlquist, John S. & Ichino, Nahomi & Wittenberg, Jason & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2018. "How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 906-919.
    18. Kelly Morrison & Daniela Donno & Burcu Savun & Perisa Davutoglu, 2025. "Competing judgments: Multiple election observers and post-election contention," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 293-321, June.
    19. Eduardo Levy Yeyati & Lorena Moscovich & Constanza Abuin, 2017. "Leader over policy? The influence of political leaders on policy preferences," School of Government Working Papers wp_gob1_2017_10, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.
    20. Abhijit Ramalingam & Brock V. Stoddard, 2021. "Does reducing inequality increase cooperation?​," GRU Working Paper Series GRU_2021_022, City University of Hong Kong, Department of Economics and Finance, Global Research Unit.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:5:p:1761-1772. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.