Publication Type: Paper (prepared oral presentation)
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Much of the psychological work on attitudes to war has adopted a traditional social psychological conception of attitudes, and has sought to measure the extent to which individuals are either generally in favour of, or opposed to, war as a solution to political problems, or the extent to which individuals support or oppose a particular war. Developments in discourse analysis over the last twenty years have thus far had limited impact on this area of research, and the present paper seeks to explore the utility of a discourse analytic approach to attitudes to war. Taking as its starting point Potter & Wetherell’s (1987) initial concern with the concepts of function, construction and variability in discourse, a discourse analytic approach is applied to data drawn from UK televised debates in early 2003 concerning the Iraq War. Attention is drawn to the way in which both advocates and opponents of military intervention oriented to matters of stake and interest, and the analytic importance of attending to the normative dimension of attitudes. Indeed, speakers generally framed their arguments in order to anticipate and counter the potential criticisms that they were either a war monger, or that they were lenient towards tyranny. It is concluded that the mapping of individuals onto a pro-war/anti-war attitudinal continuum may be of limited utility when we confront the discourse of social actors themselves in the course of debating whether to take military action or not.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: A practical outcome of a divide between military and civilian cultures is attitudes toward going to war. If the military culture is more prone to war, it may make it difficult for civilian legislatures to make appropriate policy in this area. Does military affiliation make people more open to going to war? Data from a survey of West Point, ROTC, and civilian students is compared to determine if military affiliation is associated with attitudes toward sending troops into Afghanistan after the war started and Iraq prior to sending troops. Majorities of all students supported both war efforts. However, West Point and ROTC cadets are somewhat more supportive of both wars than the civilian students. However, West Point and ROTC cadets also have more men and ideological conservatives, both of which are associated with increased support of these war efforts. Advanced analysis show that most of military-civilian differences in war support can be explained by the gender and ideological composition of the groups, suggesting that a change in the composition of these groups may make them more representative of the beliefs and values of the larger civilian community.