CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Social and Intergroup PsychologyInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

How civilian casualty information shapes support for US involvement in an ally country’s war effort

Open access
Kraitzman, Alon P., Etienne, Tom W., Albarracin, Dolores·2025·Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
DOI 10.1057/s41599-024-04191-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

War is often described as “heart-wrenching,” but how do portrayals of conflict influence public support for US involvement when it is not directly engaged? This paper examines how information about civilian casualties and infrastructural damage, commonly found in media coverage, shapes public opinion on whether the US should provide military, diplomatic, and economic aid to foreign nations. Using a longitudinal survey of a probability sample of Americans and four experiments (three preregistered and two with nationally representative samples), we analyze both the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia and hypothetical conflicts involving a US ally and a US adversary. Findings indicate that information about civilian harm significantly increases public support for US involvement, with empathy mediating this effect-but only when the casualties are civilians from an ally, not an adversary, country. The theoretical and applied implications of these important and timely findings are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41599-024-04191-y

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Such dynamics generate "information fog" and overload, obscuring ground truth and weakening critical appraisal.

    “Such dynamics generate “information fog” and overload, obscuring ground truth and weakening critical appraisal (Kraitzman et al., 2025).”

    From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Kraitzman et al., 2025

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says conflicting casualty estimates create uncertainty and that misinformation can foster skepticism about casualty reports. It does not say these dynamics generate information overload or weaken critical appraisal, so those parts of the claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • This information deluge is typically fragmented and decontextualized, and it is often packaged for attention capture in sensory, gamified formats.

    “This information deluge is typically fragmented and decontextualized, and it is often packaged for attention capture in sensory, gamified formats.”

    From Toward a humanized technology: a reinterpretation of Erich Fromm’ s humanistic peace psychology (2026) · cites this paper as Kraitzman et al., 2025

    The paper discusses images, verbal accounts, and detailed descriptions of civilian harm in media coverage (Abstract), but does not characterize an information deluge as fragmented, decontextualized, or packaged in sensory, gamified formats to capture attention. Searches for those terms and related descriptions found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Aday S (2010) Leading the charge: Media, elites, and the use of emotion in sti- mulating rally effects in wartime. J. Commun. 60(3):440-465
  2. Adida CL, Lo A, Platas MR (2018) Perspective taking can promote short-term inclusionary behavior toward syrian refugees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 115(38):9521-9526
  3. Agerberg M, Kreft A-K (2023) Sexual violence, gendered protection and support for intervention. J. Peace Res. 60(5):853-867
  4. Albarracín D. Conspiracy beliefs: Knowledge, ego defense, and social integration in the processing of fake news. In The Psychology of Fake News, pages 196-219. Routledge. (2020)
  5. Batson, C. D. A scientific search for altruism: Do we only care about ourselves? Oxford University Press (2018)
  6. Brody, R. Assessing the president: The media, elite opinion, and public support. Stanford University Press (1991)
  7. Casler D, Groves D (2023) Perspective taking through partisan eyes: Cross-national empathy, partisanship, and attitudes toward international cooperation. J. Polit. 85(4):1471-1486
  8. Crawford KF, Lawrence ED, Lebovic JH (2017) Aversion, acceptance, or appre- hension? the effects of gender on us public opinion concerning us-inflicted civilian casualties. J. Glob. Security Stud. 2(2):150-169
  9. Dill J, Sagan SD, Valentino B (2023) Inconstant care: Public attitudes towards force protection and civilian casualties in the united states, united kingdom, and israel. J. Confl. Resolut. 67(4):587-616
  10. Eisenberg N, Miller PA (1987) The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychol. Bull. 101(1):91
  11. Friedman RS, Sutton B (2013) Selling the war? system-justifying effects of commercial advertising on civilian casualty tolerance. Political Psychol. 34(3):351-367
  12. Gadarian S. K., Brader T. Emotion and political psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, page 191. (2023)
  13. Gartner SS, Gelpi CF (2016) The affect and effect of images of war on individual opinion and emotions. Int. Interact. 42(1):172-188
  14. Gartner SS, Segura GM (1998) War, casualties, and public opinion. J. Confl. Resolut. 42(3):278-300
  15. Gartner S. S., Segura G. M. Costly Calculations: A Theory of War, Casualties, and Politics. Cambridge University Press. (2021)
  16. Geissler D, Bär D, Pröllochs N, Feuerriegel S (2023) Russian propaganda on social media during the 2022 invasion of ukraine. EPJ Data Sci. 12(1):35
  17. Gelpi C, Feaver PD, Reifler J (2005) Success matters: Casualty sensitivity and the war in iraq. Int. Security 30(3):7-46
  18. Graziano WG, Habashi MM, Sheese BE, Tobin RM (2007) Agreeableness, empa- thy, and helping: a person × situation perspective. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93(4):583
  19. Griffin M (2010) Media images of war. Media, War. Confl. 3(1):7-41
  20. Herrmann RK, Keller JW (2004) Beliefs, values, and strategic choice: Us leaders' decisions to engage, contain, and use force in an era of globalization. J. Polit. 66(2):557-580
  21. Höijer B (2003) The discourse of global compassion and the media. Nordi. Rev. 24(2):19-29
  22. Johns R, Davies GA (2019) Civilian casualties and public support for military action: Experimental evidence. J. Confl. Resolut. 63(1):251-281
  23. Joseph DL, Chan MY, Heintzelman SJ, Tay L, Diener E, Scotney VS (2020) The manipulation of affect: A meta-analysis of affect induction procedures. Psy- chol. Bull. 146(4):355
  24. Khorram-Manesh A, Goniewicz K, Burkle FM, Robinson Y (2022) Review of military casualties in modern conflicts-the re-emergence of casualties from armored warfare. Mil. Med. 187(3-4):e313-e321
  25. Kraitzman AP, Genauer J (2023) The impact of security issues on government evaluation: evidence from the arab world. Democratization 30(4):693-714
  26. Kreft A-K, Agerberg M (2024) Imperfect victims? civilian men, vulnerability, and policy preferences. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 118(1):274-290
  27. Milner HV, Tingley D (2013) Public opinion and foreign aid: A review essay. Int. Interact. 39(3):389-401
  28. Moniz P., Wlezien C. Issue salience and political decisions. In Oxford research encyclopedia of politics (2020)
  29. Mutz, D. C. Winners and losers: The psychology of foreign trade, volume 27. Princeton University Press. (2021)
  30. Oswald PA (1996) The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern and altruistic helping. J. Soc. Psychol. 136(5):613-623
  31. Paciello M, Fida R, Cerniglia L, Tramontano C, Cole E (2013) High cost helping scenario: The role of empathy, prosocial reasoning and moral disengagement on helping behavior. Personal. Individ. Differ. 55(1):3-7
  32. Pinker, S. The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books. (2012)
  33. Sanaei A (2019) Time is of the essence: The causal effect of duration on support for war. J. Peace Res. 56(6):783-796
  34. Smeltz D (2022) Are we drowning at the water's edge? foreign policy polarization among the us public. Int. Polit. (Hague) 59(5):786
  35. Snow N (2008) International exchanges and the us image. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 616(1):198-222
  36. Tetlock PE (2003) Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7(7):320-324
  37. Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS (2000) The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical coun- terfactuals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78(5):853
  38. Tomz M, Weeks JL, Yarhi-Milo K (2020) Public opinion and decisions about military force in democracies. Int. Organ. 74(1):119-143
  39. Walsh JI (2015) Precision weapons, civilian casualties, and support for the use of force. Polit. Psychol. 36(5):507-523

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kraitzman, A. P., Etienne, T. W., & Albarracin, D.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kraitzman, Alon P.
  • Etienne, Tom W.
ORCID
Venue
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-01-06
Volume
12
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
  • 2662-9992
DOI
10.1057/s41599-024-04191-y
OpenAlex
W4406104407
Cited by
4
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2
FWCI
4.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
civilian casualties, public support for war, war reporting, empathy, Russian invasion of Ukraine, military assistance, foreign policy attitudes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review