Determining Support for Humanitarian Interventions: Issue Framing vs Cues

• In Event: Poster Session: International Security II

Abstract

What determines mass public support for humanitarian interventions: the frames of loss and gain, or the elite and social group cues? This study extends the research on public support for humanitarian interventions by capturing the direction and strength of the effect from elite and social group cues on individuals' willingness to support such foreign policy endeavors. The study argues that elite and social group cues help determine the public willingness to support or oppose the humanitarian interventions, regardless, whether the issues are framed as a loss or gain. In contrast to previous work using prospect theory, the study frames the expected costs as intervals, thus increasing the realism of the scenarios. Empirically, it relies on three survey experiments, incorporating three novel prospect theory decision problems, and open answers for respondents to provide their reasoning for choosing the risk-averse or risk-acceptant plan of intervention. Two main findings are presented. Firstly, the study provides for the first-time evidence that prospect theory’s framing effects work equally well when costs are presented as intervals and not constants. And secondly, the study’s results support the claim that Americans' willingness to support humanitarian interventions tends to conform with the elite or social group cue they are exposed to, regardless of the loss or gain frame.

Author

• Zlatin Mitkov, University of Central Florida