@article{ref1,
title="How Many Casualties Are Too Many? Proportional Reasoning in the Valuation of Military and Civilian Lives1",
journal="Journal of applied social psychology",
year="2009",
author="Friedrich, James and Dood, Tiffany L.",
volume="39",
number="11",
pages="2541-2569",
abstract="People frequently judge saved lives as less valuable and deaths more acceptable when they are characterized as small fractions of larger “at-risk” groups. Two studies with U.S. college students demonstrated this effect in judgments concerning acceptable numbers of U.S. military and Middle Eastern civilian casualties. At the beginning of the current U.S.–Iraq conflict (Study 1), priming cost–benefit reasoning produced greater proportional devaluation for Iraqi civilian than for U.S. military lives. In a hypothetical armed intervention in Iran to halt weapons development (Study 2), women but not men showed greater proportional devaluation for U.S. military than for Iranian civilian lives. In both studies, proportional reasoners were willing to accept more casualties. Implications for public perceptions and attitudes are discussed.<p />",
language="",
issn="0021-9029",
doi="10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00537.x",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00537.x"
}