Marketing Military Intervention: How Policy Framing Impacts U.S. Public Opinion

Abstract

Public support for military intervention is shaped by elite justifications. This study investigates the effects of three potential frames: humanitarian, national security and global leadership. In an original survey experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to one of three treatments (or a control group). Results show a positive effect for each treatment over the control, but only the national-security treatment was statistically significant. Analysis of heterogeneous effects by party reveals that both the national-security and global-leadership frames had positive, statistically significant effects among Republicans; none of the frames had a statistically significant effect among Democrats. Analysis by race reveals that the national-security treatment had a positive, statistically significant effect for White and Asian respondents; no treatment was statistically significant for Black and Hispanic participants. These results reveal avenues that political elites might use to augment support for aggressive foreign policies—along with their limitations. The findings also provide a foundation for future research regarding how framing effects interact with partisan identity and demographic characteristics in shaping opinion on military intervention.