Hawkish Hearts? How Language Obscuring War Deaths Shifts Foreign Policy Attitudes

This study investigates how language used to describe war casualties affects public support for U.S. foreign intervention.

Rhetorical Strategies Examined

Two approaches were analyzed: sanitized language that obscures civilian deaths and dehumanizing language that diminishes the value of certain lives.

Effects on Public Attitudes

Through two experiments, we demonstrate how these rhetorical tactics shape public opinion:

• Sanitized language reduces emotional response to casualties → leads to more hawkish attitudes toward intervention
• Dehumanizing language also increases support for military action → despite its intended effect, it does not increase aversion to targeted groups

Key Findings

The research reveals a counterintuitive result: dehumanizing rhetoric may paradoxically make the public less likely to feel empathy or opposition against those being dehumanized.

Experimental Design

Participants were exposed to different language treatments and their subsequent foreign policy views measured. This "this means that" approach provides direct insights into media framing effects.