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.