Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As foreign sources in the news might help the public assess their home country’s foreign policies, scholars have recently turned attention to the effects of foreign source cues on domestic public opinion. Using original survey experiments, we explore the effects of domestic (United States) and foreign (Israeli, British, and Palestinian) criticism of Israel’s military actions and settlements on US attitudes towards the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. We find that foreign cues by government officials and non-governmental organisations have modest effects, and are generally not more influential than domestic cues. We also show that individuals might discount foreign criticism of Israel in the context of US bipartisan support for Israel. While our experiments reveal some heterogeneous effects related to partisanship, we are sceptical of significant movement in opinion in response to foreign cues. These findings provide insights into foreign source cue effects beyond the context of the use of military force.

Keywords

foreign cues foreign policy human rights Israeli–Palestinian conflict public opinion survey experiment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Althaus

(2003) When news norms collide, follow the lead: New evidence for press independence. Political Communication 20(4): 381–414.

Arceneaux

(2008) Can partisan cues diminish accountability? Political Behavior 30(2): 139–160.

Baum

Groeling

(2009) Shot by the messenger: Partisan cues and public opinion regarding national security and war. Political Behavior 31(2): 157–186.

Berinsky

(2009) In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Berinsky

Margolis

Sances

(2014) Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science 58(3): 739–753.

Bishin

Hayes

Incantalupo

et al . (2016) Opinion backlash and public attitudes: Are political advances in gay rights counterproductive? American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 625–648.

Brady

Djupe

(2016) Assessing citizen views of interest group alliances. Interest Groups & Advocacy 5(3): 301–326.

Brandt

Chambers

Crawford

et al . (2015) Bounded openness: The effect of openness to experience on intolerance is moderated by target group conventionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109(3): 549–568.

Chapman

Reiter

(2004) The United Nations Security Council and the rally ‘Round the Flag Effect’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(6): 886–909.

10.

Chong

Druckman

(2007) Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review 101(4): 637–655.

11.

Christenson

Kriner

(2017) Constitutional qualms or politics as usual? The factors shaping public support for unilateral action. American Journal of Political Science 61(2): 335–349.

12.

Cohen

(2014) Foreign correspondents in Israel, and the Arab–Israeli conflict and peace process. Journal of Arab and Muslim Media Research 7(2–3): 127–143.

13.

DeYoung

Quilty

Peterson

(2007) Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(5): 880–896.

14.

Dirks

Ferrin

(2002) Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 611–628.

15.

Dragojlovic

(2015) Listening to outsiders: The impact of messenger nationality on transnational persuasion in the United States. International Studies Quarterly 59(1): 73–85.

16.

Druckman

(2001) On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics 63(4): 1041–1066.

17.

Fang

(2008) The informational role of international institutions and domestic politics. American Journal of Political Science 52(2): 304–321.

18.

Flynn

(2005) Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(5): 816–826.

19.

Gelman

(2011) Why tables are really much better than graphs. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 20(1): 3–7.

20.

Gelman

Pasarica

Dodhia

(2002) Let’s practice what we preach: Turning tables into graphs. The American Statistician 56(2): 121–130.

21.

Gelpi

(2010) Performing on cue? The formation of public opinion toward war. Journal of Conflict Resolution 54(1): 88–116.

22.

Goren

Federico

Kittilson

(2009) Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 805–820.

23.

Grieco

Gelpi

Reifler

et al . (2011) Let’s get a second opinion: International institutions and American public support for war. International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 563–583.

24.

Groeling

Baum

(2008) Crossing the water’s edge: Elite rhetoric, media coverage, and the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon. Journal of Politics 70(4): 1065–1085.

25.

Guardino

Hayes

(2018) Foreign voices, party cues, and US public opinion about military action. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 30(3): 504–516.

26.

Guisinger

Saunders

(2017) Mapping the boundaries of elite cues: How elites shape mass opinion across international issues. International Studies Quarterly 61(2): 425–441.

27.

Hayes

Guardino

(2010) Whose views made the news? Media coverage and the march to war in Iraq. Political Communication 27(1): 59–87.

28.

Hayes

Guardino

(2011) The influence of foreign voices on US public opinion. American Journal of Political Science 55(4): 831–851.

29.

Hayes

Guardino

(2013) Influence from Abroad: Foreign Voices, the Media, and US Public Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Jann

(2014) Plotting regression coefficients and other estimates in Stata. University of Bern Social Sciences Working Paper 1. Available at: http://repec.sowi.unibe.ch/files/wp1/jann-2013-coefplot.pdf (accessed 13 September 2018).

31.

Kam

Franzese

(2007) Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

32.

Kam

Kinder

(2007) Terror and ethnocentrism: Foundations of American support for the war on terrorism. Journal of Politics 69(2): 320–338.

33.

Kastellec

Leoni

(2007) Using graphs instead of tables in political science. Perspectives on Politics 5(4): 755–771.

34.

Kreps

(2010) Elite consensus as a determinant of alliance cohesion: Why public opinion hardly matters for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy Analysis 6(3): 191–215.

35.

Kreps

Wallace

(2016) International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes. Journal of Peace Research 53(6): 830–844.

36.

Kriner

(2018) Congress, public opinion, and an informal constraint on the commander-in-chief. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20(1): 52–68.

37.

Kriner

Shen

(2016) Conscription, inequality, and partisan support for war. Journal of Conflict Resolution 60(8): 1419–1445.

38.

Krosnick

Presser

(2010) Question and questionnaire design. In: Wright

Marsden

(eds) Handbook of Survey Research, 2nd edn. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp.263–313.

39.

Krosnick

Holbrook

Berent

et al . (2002) The impact of ‘no opinion’ response options on data quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly 66(3): 371–403.

40.

Lau

Redlawsk

(2001) Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 951–971.

41.

Leep

Coen

(2016) Civilian casualty inequity, partisanship, and American public support for Israel. Global Change, Peace and Security 28(2): 157–176.

42.

Linos

(2011) Diffusion through democracy. American Journal of Political Science 55(3): 678–695.

43.

Lupia

McCubbins

(1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.

44.

McCrae

(1996) Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin 120(3): 323–337.

45.

Murray

(2014) Broadening the debate about war: The inclusion of foreign critics in media coverage and its potential impact on US public opinion. Foreign Policy Analysis 10(4): 329–350.

46.

Nicholson

(2012) Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 52–66.

47.

Page

Bouton

(2006) The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want from Our Leaders but Don’t Get. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

48.

Paolino

(2017) Surprising events and surprising opinions: The importance of attitude strength and source credibility. Journal of Conflict Resolution 61(8): 1795–1815.

49.

Pew Research Center (2016) Views of Israel and Palestinians. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2016/05/05/5-views-of-israel-and-palestinians/ (accessed 13 September 2018).

50.

Pressman

(2008) Warring Friends: Alliance Restraint in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

51.

Rathbun

Kertzer

Reifler

et al . (2016) Taking foreign policy personally: Personal values and foreign policy attitudes. International Studies Quarterly 60(1): 124–137.

52.

Saad

(2017) Americans tepid on Palestinian statehood. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/203900/americans-tepid-palestinian-statehood.aspx (accessed 13 September 2018).

53.

Slater

(2007) Muting the alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000–06. International Security 32(2): 84–120.

54.

Sniderman

Stiglitz

(2012) The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

55.

Soto

John

(2017) The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113(1): 117–143.

56.

Swigger

(2013) The online citizen: Is social media changing citizens’ beliefs about democratic values? Political Behavior 35(3): 589–603.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

11.13 MB