Affiliation:
1. Brown University, USA
2. United States Military Academy, USA
3. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
Abstract
Abstract
Do military and civilian attitudes on the use of force differ and, if so, why? Past scholarship is divided not only on whether decision-makers with military experience are more hawkish but also in whether differences stem from organizational selection or socialization. We contribute to these debates through a unique opportunity to survey incoming military officers at the US Military Academy before and after basic training and pair the results with simultaneous surveys of a nationally representative sample. We find that future military elites are more hawkish than civilians, the gap is evident upon arrival, and initial socializing experiences cannot explain the gap. Numerous tests addressing potential socialization effects over a longer period reveal that experience may attenuate hawkishness but that it is insufficient to offset initial differences. The results indicate that preexisting attitudes shape the groups into which elites select as much as experiences in those groups shape attitudes.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Reference44 articles.
1. Distinctive Military Attitudes among US Enlistees, 1976–1997: Self-selection versus Socialization;Bachman;Armed Forces & Society,2000
2. Combatant Socialization and Norms of Restraint: Examining Officer Training at the US Military Academy and Army ROTC;Bell;Journal of Peace Research
3. From Violence to Voting: War and Political Participation in Uganda;Blattman;American Political Science Review,2009
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献