IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v40y2023i1p42-64.html

Hitting back or holding back in cyberspace: Experimental evidence regarding Americans’ responses to cyberattacks

Author

Listed:
  • Marcelo M Leal

    (Department of Political Science, 14707University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA)

  • Paul Musgrave

    (Department of Political Science, 14707University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA)

Abstract

Theorists offer many predictions about how Americans will respond to significant cyberattacks but systematic evaluations of American public opinion regarding these issues remain rare. We present results from a conjoint experiment and find that the public supports retaliation-in-kind against cyberattacks but is willing to escalate as the economic damage and human casualties of a hypothetical attack mount. Respondents support harsher retaliation after attacks carried out by terrorist groups or state agencies rather than those conducted by individuals or civilian hackers. Finally, the dynamics of the public's judgment regarding responses to a domestic or an international cyber attack are broadly similar.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcelo M Leal & Paul Musgrave, 2023. "Hitting back or holding back in cyberspace: Experimental evidence regarding Americans’ responses to cyberattacks," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(1), pages 42-64, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:40:y:2023:i:1:p:42-64
    DOI: 10.1177/07388942221111069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07388942221111069
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/07388942221111069?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tomz, Michael & Weeks, Jessica L.P. & Yarhi-Milo, Keren, 2020. "Public Opinion and Decisions About Military Force in Democracies," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(1), pages 119-143, January.
    2. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Connor Huff & Joshua D. Kertzer, 2018. "How the Public Defines Terrorism," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(1), pages 55-71, January.
    4. Press, Daryl G. & Sagan, Scott D. & Valentino, Benjamin A., 2013. "Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 188-206, February.
    5. Coppock, Alexander, 2019. "Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 613-628, July.
    6. King, Gary & Wand, Jonathan, 2007. "Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring Vignettes," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 46-66, January.
    7. Jens Hainmueller & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2015. "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 529-548, July.
    8. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    9. Tomz, Michael, 2007. "Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(4), pages 821-840, October.
    10. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 112-119, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miguel Alberto Gomez & Gregory H Winger, 2025. "Third-party countries in cyber conflict: Public opinion and conflict spillover in cyberspace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(3), pages 535-549, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew Amengual & Rita Mota & Alexander Rustler, 2023. "The ‘Court of Public Opinion:’ Public Perceptions of Business Involvement in Human Rights Violations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 49-74, June.
    2. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    3. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    4. repec:osf:socarx:r73pv_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Liza G. Steele & Laird Gallagher, 2025. "Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Refugees During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 2593-2627, December.
    6. repec:plo:pone00:0232424 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    8. Sam Sims & Clare Routledge, 2025. "Understanding the decision (not) to become a teacher: evidence from survey experiments with undergraduates in the UK and US," CEPEO Working Paper Series 25-15, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Nov 2025.
    9. Viskupič Filip, 2020. "More Valuable than Blood and Treasure? Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Status on Domestic Preferences for Military Intervention," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Inken Borzyskowski & Felicity Vabulas, 2024. "Public support for withdrawal from international organizations: Experimental evidence from the US," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 809-845, October.
    11. Jaroslaw Kantorowicz & Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko & Gerdien de Vries, 2025. "Public perception of terrorism attacks: A conjoint experiment," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 62(2), pages 310-327, March.
    12. Sveinung Arnesen & Troy S Broderstad & Mikael P Johannesson & Jonas Linde, 2019. "Conditional legitimacy: How turnout, majority size, and outcome affect perceptions of legitimacy in European Union membership referendums," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 176-197, June.
    13. Catherine E De Vries & Simon Hix & Miriam Sorace, 2025. "Reforming supranational institutions: Insights from a conjoint experiment in 16 countries," European Union Politics, , vol. 26(4), pages 649-666, December.
    14. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    15. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    16. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    17. Arntz, Melanie & Brüll, Eduard & Lipowski, Cäcilia, 2021. "Do preferences for urban amenities really differ by skill?," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-045, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. Christopher W. Blair & Jonathan A. Chu & Joshua A. Schwartz, 2022. "The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 677-703, May.
    19. Joshua Alley, 2023. "Elite Cues and Public Attitudes Towards Military Alliances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(7-8), pages 1537-1563, August.
    20. Sekeris, Petros G., 2025. "Propaganda and conflict," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 569-585.
    21. Brandon Behlendorf & Gary Ackerman, 2023. "DESSRT: A Novel Framework for Empirical Red Teaming at Scale," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 54(1), pages 5-27, February.
    22. Sayaka Usui & Benjamin K. Blevins, 2025. "Investing in the Future of Djibouti: A Choice-based Conjoint Analysis for Youth Employment Preferences," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(1), pages 21582440251, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:40:y:2023:i:1:p:42-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.