Loss Aversion and the Domestic Context of Military Intervention

By Nincic, Miroslav | Political Research Quarterly, March 1997 | Go to article overview

Loss Aversion and the Domestic Context of Military Intervention


Nincic, Miroslav, Political Research Quarterly


This article examines the impact of loss-aversion, as defined by prospect theory, upon the responses of the American public and Congress to U.S. military intervention abroad. In particular, it asks whether the manner in which the rationale for the intervention is framed (whether as intended to avert a loss or secure a gain) will influence the amount of support mustered for the intervention. Justifications offered for the active use of U.S. force abroad are content-analyzed to determine whether the main justification stresses avoiding a loss to an acquired geopolitical position (a "protective" intervention) or securing a net foreign policy gain (a "promotive" intervention). The extent of shifts in presidential popularity occasioned by the intervention are compared, controlling for the rationale offered and the effort made by the president (in the form of relevant speech-making) to justify the intervention. Regression analysis indicates that, with these controlling influences, a protective intervention is expected to elicit a six percentage point approval differential over a promotive intervention. The article also examines the difference that the two sorts of justification make with regard to the likelihood that Congress would pass a resolution supporting the intervention. Although the evidence is more ambiguous here, it indicates that a protectively framed intervention comes to being a necessary condition for a supportive resolution, though it is not a sufficient condition.

A better understanding of the domestic foundations of external affairs requires a firmer grasp of the national setting within which foreign policy is imbedded-particularly the play of relevant domestic preferences and the associated concerns of political leaders. In this regard, some light has been shed on the link between electoral calculations and foreign policy decisions (e.g., Stoll 1984; Gaubatz 1991; Nincic 1991), as well as on the interaction of foreign policy and popular opinion (e.g., Monroe 1979; Page and Shapiro 1983; Russett 1989). To some extent, too, the domestic drives to which decision makers must respond have been addressed, especially the bureaucratic influences (Halperin 1974; Hilsman 1990), segmental economic pressures (Cohen 1994), and domestic instabilities (Levy 1989; Morgan and Bickers 1992; Ostrom and Job 1985) that foreign policy must sometimes remedy More recently still, some attention has been paid to the impact of domestically held ideas on the conduct of foreign affairs (e.g., Goldstein and Keohane 1993).

However, we continue to know little about the impact of those behavioral and perceptual predispositions that are not directly linked to parochial interests or structured beliefs but that, nevertheless, shape the domestic political reward structure by which foreign policy decisions are guided. Rooted in social psychology, these predilections affect the responses of entities at various levels of social aggregation to international events, as well as their feelings regarding different tools of foreign policy Such inclinations cut across a variety of interests and tend to be shared by those with differently constituted ideas about international affairs. Accordingly, they may be of more value in explaining systematic inclinations in foreign policy than the variations it exhibits.

The aim of the research presented here is to examine one cognitive predilection that, along with the political interests of top decision-makers (the president in particular), may influence foreign policy choices. Specifically, I will ask whether the political system's response to the use of military force abroad is shaped by a loss aversion characterizing both the public and Congress, possibly imparting a status-quo bias to foreign policy or, at least, to the manner in which major foreign policy decisions are framed.

LOSS AVERSION AND ITS FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The consequences of loss aversion have been most extensively examined within the context of prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979, 1984; Thaler 1980), a body of thought challenging core assumptions of expected utility theory and whose predictions have enjoyed substantial experimental confirmation (Knetsch and Sinden 1984; Quattrone and Tversky 1988; Knetsch 1989, see also Levy 1992).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Loss Aversion and the Domestic Context of Military Intervention
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.