| Summary/Abstract |
How significant is gender in explaining US public opinion regarding civilian casualties inflicted by the US military during combat and counterterror operations? For answers, we test experimental treatment models on original data obtained from pre-election and post-election surveys conducted as part of the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Our evidence supports prior claims that women support military action more reluctantly than men, but, much like men, condition their positions on the accompanying human costs. We find, nonetheless, that women are less likely to support attacks that might bring high numbers of civilian deaths, and, unlike men, base their support on the potential gains from an attack. Indeed, we conclude that differences in support for military action between men and women stem more from the perceived benefits of the attacks than from human costs.
|