Political Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 157–186 | Cite as

Shot by the Messenger: Partisan Cues and Public Opinion Regarding National Security and War

Original Paper

Abstract

Research has shown that messages of intra-party harmony tend to be ignored by the news media, while internal disputes, especially within the governing party, generally receive prominent coverage. We examine how messages of party conflict and cooperation affect public opinion regarding national security, as well as whether and how the reputations of media outlets matter. We develop a typology of partisan messages in the news, determining their likely effects based on the characteristics of the speaker, listener, news outlet, and message content. We hypothesize that criticism of a Republican president by his fellow partisan elites should be exceptionally damaging (especially on a conservative media outlet), while opposition party praise of the president should be the most helpful (especially on a liberal outlet). We test our hypotheses through an experiment and a national survey on attitudes regarding the Iraq War. The results show that credible communication (i.e., “costly” rhetoric harmful to a party) is more influential than “cheap talk” in moving public opinion. Ironically, news media outlets perceived as ideologically hostile can actually enhance the credibility of certain messages relative to “friendly” news sources.

Keywords

Public opinion Foreign policy Media effects Media bias Iraq 

References

  1. Bacon, P., Jr. (2006). Can Lieberman survive Iraq? Time, (June), 25. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207783,00.html.
  2. Baum, M. A. (2002). The constituent foundations of the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon. International Studies Quarterly, 46, 263–298. doi:10.1111/1468-2478.00232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (forthcoming). War stories: The causes and consequences of citizen views of War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baum, M. A., & Gussin, P. (2008). In the eye of the beholder: How information shortcuts shape individual perceptions of bias in the media. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(1), 1–31. doi:10.1561/100.00007010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaumont, T. (2005). Iowa’s top statesmen have low U.S. profile. The Des Moines Register, Online Edition, October 10. http://nl.newsbank.com.
  6. Bowers, C. (2007). Action: Freeze out Fox News. Posted to MyDD.com February 21, 2007 http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/21/131213/634.
  7. Brody, R. (1991). Assessing presidential character. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Calvert, R. (1985). The value of biased information: A rational choice model of political advice. The Journal of Politics, 47, 530–555. doi:10.2307/2130895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canes-Wrone, B. (2006). Who leads whom? Presidents, policy, and the public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. CBS/New York Times. (2006). The Connecticut Democratic primary. Exit poll (8/9/06). http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/ctexitpoll.pdf.
  11. Cox, G., & Magar, E. (1999). How much is majority status in the U.S. Congress worth? The American Political Science Review, 93, 299–309. doi:10.2307/2585397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox, G., & McCubbins, M. (1993). Legislative leviathan. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Crawford, V., & Sobel, J. (1982). Strategic information transmission. Econometrica, 50, 1431–1451. doi:10.2307/1913390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dailykos.com. (2006). Nationalizing ‘The Kiss’ (8/11/06). http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/11/1801/33929.
  15. Druckman, J. N. (2001a). On the limits of framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Druckman, J. N. (2001b). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 17, 62–82. doi:10.1093/jleo/17.1.62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators, and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards, G. C., III. (1983). The public presidency. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  19. Edwards, G. C., III, & Swenson, T. (1997). Who rallies? The Journal of Politics, 59, 200–212. doi:10.2307/2998222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eichenberg, R. (2005). Victory has many friends: U.S. public opinion and the use of military force, 1981–2005. International Security, 30, 140–177. doi:10.1162/0162288054894616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feaver, P. D., & Gelpi, C. (2004). Choosing your battles: American civil-military relations and the use of force. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gartner, S. S., & Segura, G. M. (2000). Race, casualties, and opinion in the Vietnam war. The Journal of Politics, 62, 115–146. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graber, D. (1997). Mass media and American politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  24. Groeling, T. (2001). When politicians attack: The causes, contours, and consequences of partisan political communication. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  25. Groeling, T., & Baum, M. A. (2008). Crossing the water’s edge: Elite rhetoric, media coverage, and the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon. The Journal of Politics, 70(October).Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton, J. T. (2003). All the news that’s fit to sell: How the market transforms information into news. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Herrmann, R., Voss, J., Schooler, T., & Ciarrochi, J. (1997). Images in international relations: An experimental test of cognitive schema. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 403–433. doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holsti, O. (2004). Public opinion and American foreign policy. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured? A hierarchical model. The American Political Science Review, 81, 1099–1120. doi:10.2307/1962580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacobson, G. C. (2006). A divider, not a uniter. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  31. Jentleson, B. W. (1992). The pretty prudent public: Post post-Vietnam American opinion on the use of military force. International Studies Quarterly, 36, 49–74. doi:10.2307/2600916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jentleson, B. W., & Britton, R. L. (1998). Still pretty prudent: Post-cold war American public opinion on the use of military force. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42, 395–417. doi:10.1177/0022002798042004001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 341–355. doi:10.2307/2669316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koeske, G., & Crano, W. (1968). The effect of congruous and incongruous source-statement combinations upon the judged credibility of a communication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 384–399. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(68)90065-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23–55. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2781.
  36. Kuklinski, J., & Hurley, N. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. The Journal of Politics, 56, 729–751. doi:10.2307/2132190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kull, S., & Ramsey, C. (2001). The myth of the reactive public. In P. Everts & P. Isneria (Eds.), Public opinion and the international use of force. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Larson, E. V. (2000). Putting theory to work: Diagnosing public opinion on the US intervention in Bosnia. In M. Nincic & J. Lepgold (Eds.), Being useful: Policy relevance and international relations theory (pp. 174–233). Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  41. McCormack, M., Whitlock, S., & Noyes, R. (2006). The Iraq war on cable TV. Media Research Center report. http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2006/IraqWarCableTV/report121906_p1.asp.
  42. Morgan, T. C., & Bickers, K. N. (1992). Domestic discontent and the external use of force. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(1), 25–52. doi:10.1177/0022002792036001002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, presidents and public opinion. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. National Security Council. (NSC). (1997). A national security strategy for a new century. http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/Strategy.
  45. National Security Council. (NSC). (2005). National strategy for victory in Iraq. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html.
  46. Nelson, T., & Garst, J. (2005). Values-based political messages and persuasion: Relationships among speaker, recipient, and evoked values. Political Psychology, 26, 489–516. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00428.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Oneal, J. R., Lian, B., & Joyner, J. H., Jr. (1996). Are the American people pretty prudent? Public responses to U.S. uses of force, 1950–1988. International Studies Quarterly, 40, 261–280. doi:10.2307/2600959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pew Research Center. (2005). News interest/media update. Washington, DC: Pew (June).Google Scholar
  49. Pew Research Center. (2006). News interest/believability survey. Washington, DC: Pew (June).Google Scholar
  50. Popkin, S. (1994). The reasoning voter (2nd ed.). New York: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). (2005). 2005 annual report—cable TV content analysis. http://www.journalism.org/node/709.
  52. Rahn, W. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496. doi:10.2307/2111381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sears, D. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 515–530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sniderman, P., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sobel, R. (1993). What have we learned about public opinion in U.S. foreign policy. In Richard Sobel (Ed.), Public opinion in U.S. foreign policy: The controversy over contra aid (pp. 269–278). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Spence, A. Michael. (1973). Market signaling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Tuchman, G. (1972). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  58. Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325–342. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(66)90026-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Whitcomb, D. (2007). Democrats cancel Fox News debate. Reuters.com. March 9, 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0918742820070310.
  60. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John F. Kennedy School of Government and Department of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication StudiesUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations