![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the main determinants of Turkish public opinion on the use and utility of military force. Regression analyses based on survey data from a nationally representative sample demonstrate that socioeconomic and attitudinal factors perform better than demographic attributes in predicting individual support for the use of force. Accordingly, a high school degree, trust in the UN, and financial satisfaction have positive and significant association with isolationist foreign policy attitudes, whereas national pride, trust in the army, satisfaction with the government’s foreign policy performance and self-placement on the political right exert a positive effect toward militant foreign policy dispositions. The analyses also reveal considerable variation in individual attitudes between the supporters of the Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi and Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi on the one hand, and the Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi and Halkların Demokratik Partisi on the other hand.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Dr. Osman Sabri Kiratli is an assistant professor in Department of International Trade at Bogazici University, Istanbul. He received an MA (2007) and PhD (2012) in political science from the University of Massachusetts – Amherst. His research areas include European integration, public opinion and international political economy.
Notes
1 CNN World, March 1, 2003, available at http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/01/sprj.irq.main/.
2 T24 Haber, November 28, 2016, available at: http://t24.com.tr/haber/andy-ar-anketi-firat-kalkani-pkk-ve-isidle-mucadele-hakkinda-vatandas-ne-dusunuyor,373402.
3 Kadir Has University Social and Political Trends 2016 Survey, http://www.khas.edu.tr/news/1498.
4 According to Gabriel Almond and Walter Lippmann, public opinion is incoherent, uninformed, volatile and susceptible to manipulation. Thus, public opinion cannot provide a basis for foreign policy and is not worthy of scholarly investigations. See Almond, “Public Opinion,” and Lippmann, Essays.
5 Risse-Kappen, “Public Opinion”; Holsti, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy”; and Foyle, Counting the Public.
6 Mueller, War, Presidents; Eichenberg, “Victory Has Many Friends”; and Gelpi, Feaver, and Reifler, “Success Matters.”
7 Gartner, Segura, and Wilkening, “All Politics Are Local.”
8 Kam and Kinder, “Terror and Ethnocentrism.”
9 Reifler et al., “International Events.”
10 Katz and Hass, “Racial Ambivalence” and Berinsky, “Assuming the Costs of War.”
11 Grieco et al., “Let’s Get a Second Opinion.”
12 Gartner and Segura, “War, Casualties, and Public Opinion.”
13 Kennedy and Dickenson, “Turkish Foreign Policy”; Aydın, “Who Is Afraid of Globalization?”; Çarkoğlu and Kirişçi, “The View from Turkey”; and Uslu et al., “Turkish Public Opinion.”
14 Mueller, War, Presidents; Burk, “Public Support for Peacekeeping”; and Eichenberg, “Victory Has Many Friends.”
15 Gartner and Segura, “War, Casualties, and Public Opinion” and Karol and Miguel, “The Electoral Cost.”
16 Berinsky, “Assuming the Costs of War” and Burk, “Public Support for Peacekeeping.”
17 Larson, Casualties and Consensus and Eichenberg, “Victory Has Many Friends.”
18 Russett and Nincic, “American Opinion” and Gartner and Segura, “War, Casualties, and Public Opinion.”
19 Russett and Nincic, “American Opinion.”
20 Jentleson and Britton, “Still Pretty Prudent” and Eichenberg, “Victory Has Many Friends.”
21 Peffley and Hurwitz, “International Events” and Gartner, Segura, and Wilkening, “All Politics Are Local.”
22 Lin, “Selective News Exposure” and Kam and Kinder, “Terror and Ethnocentrism.”
23 Kam and Kinder, “Terror and Ethnocentrism,” 328.
24 Zaller, The Nature and Origins and Lupia, “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias.”
25 Zaller, The Nature and Origins; Katz and Hass, “Racial Ambivalence”; Berinsky, “Assuming the Costs of War”; and Boettcher and Cobb, “International Relations Under Risk.”
26 Grieco et al., “Let’s Get a Second Opinion”; Kull and Destler, Misreading the Public; and Eichenberg, “Victory Has Many Friends.”
27 This Project is fully funded by Bogazici University, Istanbul, Research Fund Grant Number 15N02SUP1.
28 The questionnaire and detailed sampling procedure can be obtained from the author.
29 Wittkopf, “On the Foreign Policy Beliefs.”
30 Kertzer et al., “Moral Support,” 6.
31 Ferver and Gelpi, “Choosing Your Battles.”
32 Guth, “Religion and American Attitudes.”
33 Druckman, “The Implications of Framing.”
34 Clements, “Examining Public Attitudes” and Desposato, Gartzke, and Suong, “How ‘Democratic’ Is Democratic Peace?”
35 Eichenberg, “Victory Has Many Friends” and Lyon and Malone, “Was Woodrow Wilson Right?”
36 Peffley and Hurwitz, “International Events”; Froese and Mencken, “A US Holy War?”; and Rallings, Thrasher, and Moon, “British Public Opinion.”
37 Clements, “Examining Public Attitudes.”
38 Inglehart, “Post-Materialism” and Holsti, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy.”
39 Rallings, Thrasher, and Moon, “British Public Opinion” and Clements, “Examining Public Attitudes.”
40 Clements, “Public Opinion.”
41 Kam and Kinder, “Terror and Ethnocentrism.”
42 Grieco et al., “Let’s Get a Second Opinion”; Kull and Destler, Misreading the Public; and Gelpi, Gelpi, Feaver, and Reifler, “Success Matters.”
43 Grieco et al., “Let’s Get a Second Opinion,” 566.