Newsroom

Wartime leaders have long sought to sway public opinion by “framing” bad news from the frontlines. They present inconvenient facts in an altered format in order to generate support for their policies. A new study from North Carolina State University shows that Bush administration attempts to “frame” casualties from the Iraq War bolstered support for the war effort among certain members of the U.S. public, but also produced a backlash that led to decreased tolerance for additional casualties and war spending among others.

“By 2006, supporters of the war in Iraq were making the argument that the casualties and financial costs of the war justified ‘staying the course’ so that these sacrifices ‘should not have been made in vain,’” says Dr. Bill Boettcher, an associate professor of political science at NC State and co-author of the study. “This argument, called an ‘investment frame’ because it presents the casualties as investments in the war that can be ‘made good’ through victory, was used to shore up public support for continuing the war. Investment frames attempt to turn the loss of ‘blood and treasure’ from a liability into an asset. We performed this study to see whether Bush’s strategy for influencing public opinion was effective at a time when attitudes about the Iraq War had hardened considerably.”

Boettcher and fellow researcher Dr. Michael Cobb, also an associate professor of political science at NC State, polled a nationally representative sample of more than 1,300 Americans in September 2006 to gauge overall support for the war effort. They asked a subset of the participants how many more casualties and how much more spending they were willing to tolerate. They asked the same question of a separate subset of participants, after presenting the following investment frame: “Some people say we need to stay and complete the mission in Iraq to honor the dead and make sure they did not die in vain.”

The researchers found that the investment frame only produced a positive response among those study participants who supported the initial decision to go to war in Iraq. These participants’ tolerance for additional casualties and war spending was significantly higher than the casualty and war spending tolerance of participants in a control group that were not exposed to the frame.

However, there was a backlash among people who did not support the initial decision to go to war. They were significantly less tolerant of further casualties and spending after receiving the investment frame when compared to the control group. “This shows that the investment frame is effective when preaching to the converted,” Boettcher says. “The downside is that, if other groups hear you preaching to the converted, it drives them away – making it a dubious tool for broadening public support.”

The authors note that this study has significant implications for Obama administration efforts to maintain public support for the war in Afghanistan. “As casualties mount in Afghanistan, Obama would be wise to avoid the questionable information strategies associated with the Bush administration and the Iraq War,” Cobb says.

The research was funded by the Institute for Southern Studies and by NC State’s School of Public and International Affairs. The study will be published in the October issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution.

- shipman -

Note: The study abstract follows.

“‘Don’t Let Them Die In Vain’: Casualty Frames and Public Tolerance for Escalating Commitment in Iraq”

Authors: William A. Boettcher III and Michael D. Cobb, North Carolina State University

Published: October 2009, Journal of Conflict Resolution

Abstract: This article builds on past framing research to probe the impact of casualty frames on the public’s willingness to expend additional “blood and treasure” in an ongoing war. The rhetoric of “sunk costs” (often described as “sacrifices”) that must be redeemed through further conflict is a well-known, yet irrational, trope. Utilizing an experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey on attitudes about Iraq, we find that “investment frames” increase support for the war among individuals who believe the U.S. “did the right thing in Iraq,” but decrease support for the war among those who feel the U.S. “should have stayed out.” We also find, however, that framing effects are inconsistent when the frames are attributed to sources. These latter results demonstrate the importance of including unattributed frames to evaluate source effects in framing research.

Researchers at North Carolina State University have received a three-year, $1.2 million grant from the National Science Foundation’s Center for Chemical Innovation (NSF-CCI) to pursue research in the emerging field of  molecular spintronics. The grant will fund a center for molecular spintronics at NC State and support a research coalition between scientists at NC State and UNC-Chapel Hill with the aim of using this technology to develop smaller, faster, more energy-efficient electronic devices with increased storage capability.

Dr. David Shultz, professor of chemistry, is the principal investigator. NC State co-PIs include Drs. Dan Dougherty, Marco Buongiorno-Nardelli, Jack Rowe (physics), Joe Tracy (materials science and engineering) and Gail Jones (math, science and technology education). The grant is one of four awarded nationally by the NSF.

Molecular spintronics refers to the use of designed molecules containing electrons that are not involved in chemical bonds. These electrons have small magnetic fields which can then be    utilized to power electronic devices with more memory storage capability, faster operation and lower energy usage.

“This is a combination of materials science and chemistry that goes beyond mere  nanotechnology,” Shultz says, “and that has the advantage of taking the field of electronics beyond the current limitations we have when working with materials like silicon.”

The grant also allows the research team to focus on outreach and training for a new generation of scientists specializing in this technology by providing funding for graduate courses and other educational activities.

“It is an effort not only to use designed molecules to build new devices, but also to train future researchers and workers who can bring this technology into the world and marketplace,” Buongiorno-Nardelli says.

-peake-

North Carolina State University’s top lawyer and head of its legal affairs office will retire effective Oct. 1. Mary Beth Kurz, vice chancellor and general counsel, has spent 34 years as a university attorney, the last 13 of which have been at NC State.

A frequent lecturer on legal issues in higher education, Kurz’s areas of practice include education, labor and employment, administrative, affirmative action/equal opportunity, civil rights and constitutional law. She has taught classes for NC State’s College of Management.

She previously served as general counsel for the Texas A&M University system, general counsel for Michigan State University and legal counsel for the University of Montana. As an assistant attorney general for the State of Maryland, her principal assignment was representing state colleges and universities. She served as an assistant legislative officer for the governor of Maryland, assistant attorney general for the state’s criminal division and clerk for the chief judge of the Court of Special Appeals.

Kurz received a bachelor’s degree, magna cum laude, from Marywood College (Pennsylvania) and a law degree with honors from the University of Maryland. She is a member of the bar in the states of North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, Montana, Maryland and the District of Columbia. She served as president of the National Association of College and University Attorneys from 1992 to 1993 and as a member of the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association from 1993 to 1995.

The search to replace Kurz is under way; David Drooz, senior associate general counsel at NC State, is serving in an interim capacity.

-ford-

Successful entrepreneurs turn big ideas into successful business opportunities, but how should they protect those ideas? A new paper from North Carolina State University offers a “how-to” guide on intellectual property protection, laying out the options for budding entrepreneurs as they consider how to move forward.

Continue Reading »

Parenthood is pushing mothers and fathers in opposite directions on political issues associated with social welfare, from health care to education, according to new research from North Carolina State University.

“Parenthood seems to heighten the political ‘gender gap,’ with women becoming more liberal and men more conservative when it comes to government spending on social welfare issues,” says Dr. Steven Greene, an associate professor of political science at NC State and co-author of the study. Greene and Dr. Laurel Elder of Hartwick College used data on the 2008 presidential election from the American National Election Studies to evaluate the voting behavior of men and women who have children at home. Parents who have grown children were not part of the study.

“Basically, women with children in the home were more liberal on social welfare attitudes, and attitudes about the Iraq War, than women without children at home,” Greene says, “which is a very different understanding of the politics of mothers than captured by the ‘Security Mom’ label popular in much media coverage. But men with kids are more conservative on social welfare issues than men without kids.” Men with kids did not differ from men without kids in their attitudes towards Iraq.

Greene also notes that, “despite media speculation that Sarah Palin, given her status as a self-proclaimed ‘Hockey Mom’ and working mother of five, would be effective at attracting the votes and admiration of parents, especially mothers, the research showed no evidence of a ‘Sarah Palin effect’ (between parents and non-parents), even when looking exclusively at Republicans.” Greene explains that this means there was no difference in how parents viewed Sarah Palin versus how non-parents viewed Sarah Palin.

The researchers evaluated the effect of parenting on voting behavior because parenthood has become increasingly politicized in recent decades. For example, Greene says, the Republican party identified itself as the “family values” party during the 1990s.

Greene and Elder had previously looked at similar data for elections going back through 1980, and their new research shows that the trend is strengthening for men with children to become more conservative, while the trend for moms to become more liberal is holding steady.

“It appears that the Democratic position, that government has a role in addressing social problems, appeals to women with children,” Greene says, “Whereas men with children are drawn to the Republican arguments that government should not play a major role on social welfare issues.”

Greene presented the research, “‘Mortgage Moms’ and ‘More Responsible Fathers’: Parenthood and Issue Attitudes in the 2008 Presidential Election,” at the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting in Toronto, Sept. 5.

-shipman-