Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Existing studies suggest that support for or opposition to proposed policies by those with military experience can sway public opinion on some issues, particularly the decision to take military action. But how far does military credibility extend? Does the public listen to retired generals because of their specific expertise in the management of violence, or because of a more general aura of competence? We use a conjoint survey experiment to compare public responses to endorsement/criticism of proposed congressional action by a retired general vs. a political commentator on a range of policy issues. Our 2x2 matrix of policies varies both foreign vs. domestic issues and proximity to military expertise in the management of violence: authorization for the use of military force (foreign, proximate), supporting a trade agreement (foreign, not proximate), gun control (domestic, proximate), and social security privatization (domestic, not proximate). In addition, we vary the gender of both veteran and non-veteran speakers to see how dependent military credibility is on gender stereotypes.