At Any Cost
How Ukrainians Think about Self‐Defense Against Russia
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 6230351 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Janina Dill (0000-0002-5872-5018, University of Oxford, autor correspondente), Marnie Howlett (0000-0003-3446-4631, University of Oxford), Carl Müller-Crepon (0000-0001-8536-7861, London School of Economics and Political Science), Carl Müller‐crepon (London School of Economics and Political Science) |
| Ano | 2024 |
| Volume | 68 |
| Fascículo | 4 |
| Páginas | 1460-1478 |
| Data de publicação | 2024-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | American Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0092-5853 • E-ISSN: 1540-5907 |
| Editora | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/ajps.12832 |
| OpenAlex | W4387776113 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 15 |
| Referências citadas | 68 |
How do populations facing external aggression view the costs and benefits of self‐defense? In Western countries, war support has been shown to follow cost–benefit calculations, resembling the moral principle of proportionality. A categorical position, in contrast, means supporting self‐defense regardless of the costs. To evaluate which moral principle populations facing external aggression follow, we conducted a conjoint experiment with 1,160 Ukrainians in July 2022. We examine support for different strategies Ukraine could pursue against Russia, which vary regarding the political autonomy and territorial integrity they afford and three costs: civilian and military fatalities, and nuclear risk. We find that Ukrainians do not trade off autonomy or territory against these costs. A new method to rank conjoint‐attributes, computing “nested” marginal means, shows that respondents categorically reject political or territorial concessions, regardless of costs. This provides first experimental evidence that populations resisting external aggression do not subject war outcomes to cost–benefit calculations
Aggression · Autonomy · Economics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Position (finance · Law · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social Psychology · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence · War, Ethics, and Justification
Masking or lexicographic preferences? Using conjoint experiments to distinguish between two fundamental theories of choice
Is There a Partisan Divide in Citizens’ Preferences on Ukraine Support? Survey-Experimental Evidence from the US
Public support for negotiated settlement of interstate war
Voter Preferences for Legislators' Effort Allocation
Ukraine, War, Love
Permission to Secede? The Impact of Foreign Endorsements on Attitudes Toward Separatist Movements
Civilian Mindsets and Attitudes toward Peace in Wartime
Red lines versus negotiables
No Land to Give
Signaling, interests, and domestic politics
Perceptions of Peace in Times of War
Ordering Effects versus Cognitive Burden
Ukrainian public opinion and the path to peace with Russia
Do citizens respond to tax reforms during conflict? Experimental evidence from Ukraine
Are People Willing to Trade Away Democracy for Desirable Outcomes? Experimental Evidence From Six Countries
Killing in War
Defensive Killing
A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justifications
Facts and Values
Exposure to Political Violence and Political Extremism
An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment
Elusive peace
Collapsed Countries, Casualty Dread, and the New American Way of War
War and Self-Defense
Still Taboo? Citizens’ Attitudes toward the Use of Nuclear Weapons
Experimental evidence on determinants of support for nuclear use in response to threats of nuclear retaliation
Identity in Transformation
Nationalism, Threat, and Support for External Intervention
Unreliable Protection
Just War and Unjust Soldiers
Self-Defense in International Law and Rights of Persons
Selective or collective? Palestinian perceptions of targeting in house demolition
The lesser evil? Experimental evidence on the strength of nuclear and chemical weapon “taboos”
Success Matters
Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran
Victory Has Many Friends
Proportionality and Force in International Law
Moral Realism
Identity and political preferences in Ukraine – before and after the Euromaidan
Did Georgian Voters Desire Military Escalation in 2008? Experiments and Observations
Citizenship as a cornerstone of civic national identity in Ukraine
Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments
Identification of Preferences in Forced-Choice Conjoint Experiments
Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis
Improving the External Validity of Conjoint Analysis
Proportionality in the Morality of War
The Realist Tradition in American Public Opinion
European Ukrainians and their fight against Russian invasion
Emotions, Terrorist Threat, and Drones
Civilian Casualties and Public Support for Military Action
Still Pretty Prudent
Worlds Apart
What Shapes Civilian Beliefs about Violent Events? Experimental Evidence from Pakistan
Targeting and Public Opinion
Not Just a War Theory
The Political Legacies of Combat
Who Takes the Blame? The Strategic Effects of Collateral Damage
What Do We Learn about Voter Preferences from Conjoint Experiments
A Checkpoint Effect? Evidence from a Natural Experiment on Travel Restrictions in the West Bank
The Dynamics of Refugee Return
Kettles of Hawks
Ethics Abroad
Violent Conflict and Behavior
The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones
Can War Foster Cooperation
A persuasive peace
Risk tolerance during conflict
Peace agreement design and public support for peace
Atomic Aversion
Democracy, War Initiation, and Victory
Terrorism and Voting
Explaining Support for Combatants during Wartime
The Consequences of Victimization on Political Identities
| Obras citantes distintas | 15 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 7,5 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Velocidade de citação | current |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 14 |