IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/bcwhu.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Opinion and Alliance Commitments in Cybersecurity: An Attack Against All?

Author

Listed:
  • Gomez, Miguel Alberto

    (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule)

  • Winger, Gregory

Abstract

Cyber operations as a facet of international competition pose a direct challenge to alliances. Designed to respond to conventional military attacks, alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must now determine whether their defensive commitments extend into cyberspace. This question is not limited to political and military elites. As the use of force in defense of allies is among the most politically charged decisions a state can make and relies significantly on public support. This article extends recent public opinion literature on cyber conflict to investigate public attitudes towards existing treaty commitments following a destructive cyber operation against an allied state. Using a survey experiment involving U.S. nationals, we find that while subjects are sensitive to treaty obligations and allied casualties these effects are moderated by domain expertise. Furthermore, we observe that specific aggressor-ally dyads tied to geographic region can shape public preferences with subjects being more reactive to Europe based scenarios that comparable treatments in Asia.

Suggested Citation

  • Gomez, Miguel Alberto & Winger, Gregory, 2023. "Public Opinion and Alliance Commitments in Cybersecurity: An Attack Against All?," SocArXiv bcwhu, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:bcwhu
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/bcwhu
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6581003495138403af238803/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/bcwhu?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. Huddleston, R. Joseph, 2019. "Think Ahead: Cost Discounting and External Validity in Foreign Policy Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 108-119, July.
    2. Erik Gartzke & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, 2004. "Why Democracies May Actually Be Less Reliable Allies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 775-795, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Joshua D. Kertzer & Thomas Zeitzoff, 2017. "A Bottom‐Up Theory of Public Opinion about Foreign Policy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(3), pages 543-558, July.
    5. Miguel Alberto Gomez & Eula Bianca Villar, 2018. "Fear, Uncertainty, and Dread: Cognitive Heuristics and Cyber Threats," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(2), pages 61-72.
    6. Tomz, Michael, 2007. "Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(4), pages 821-840, October.
    7. Gartner, Scott Sigmund, 2008. "The Multiple Effects of Casualties on Public Support for War: An Experimental Approach," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 95-106, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Janina Dill & Scott D. Sagan & Benjamin Valentino, 2023. "Inconstant Care: Public Attitudes Towards Force Protection and Civilian Casualties in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(4), pages 587-616, April.
    3. Rudolph, Lukas & Freitag, Markus & Thurner, Paul, 2021. "The Comparative Legitimacy of Arms Exports - A Conjoint Experiment in Germany and France," SocArXiv r73pv, Center for Open Science.
    4. Stefanie Walter, 2021. "EU‐27 Public Opinion on Brexit," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 569-588, May.
    5. Vanden Eynde, Oliver & Fetzer, Thiemo & Souza, Pedro CL & Wright, Austin L., 2021. "Losing on the Home Front? Battlefield Casualties, Media, and Public Support for Foreign Interventions," CEPR Discussion Papers 16102, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. 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.
    7. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    8. Rana, Arslan Tariq & Kebewar, Mazen, 2014. "The Political Economy of FDI flows into Developing Countries: Does the depth of International Trade Agreements Matter?," EconStor Preprints 91501, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    9. Viktor BOCHARNIKOV & Sergey SVESHNIKOV & Stepan VOZNYAK & Vladimir YUZEFOVICH, 2010. "Model For Revelation Of Unfriendly Information Impacts In Mass-Media Which Are Directed On Change Of Public Opinion," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2(1), pages 21-38, March.
    10. Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2008. "Secondary Casualty Information: Casualty Uncertainty, Female Casualties, and Wartime Support," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(2), pages 98-111, April.
    11. Bruce Desmarais, 2012. "Lessons in disguise: multivariate predictive mistakes in collective choice models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 719-737, June.
    12. Adam William Chalmers & Lisa Maria Dellmuth, 2015. "Fiscal redistribution and public support for European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 386-407, September.
    13. Daniel L. Nielson & Susan D. Hyde & Judith Kelley, 2019. "The elusive sources of legitimacy beliefs: Civil society views of international election observers," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 685-715, December.
    14. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    15. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.
    16. Bernhard Reinsberg & Centre for Business Research, 2018. "Blockchain Technology and International Relations: Decentralised Solutions To Foster Cooperation In An Anarchic World?," Working Papers wp508, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    17. Mujtaba Ali Isani, 2021. "Methodological Problems of Using Arabic-Language Twitter as a Gauge for Arab Attitudes Toward Politics and Society," Contemporary Review of the Middle East, , vol. 8(1), pages 22-35, March.
    18. Idean Salehyan, 2010. "The Delegation of War to Rebel Organizations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 493-515, June.
    19. Bolle Michael & Fläschner Oliver, 2014. "The European Union: Stability Despite Challenges," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 4(2), pages 1-14, October.
    20. David R. Andersen-Rodgers, 2015. "No table necessary? Foreign policy crisis management techniques in non-state actor-triggered crises," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(2), pages 200-221, April.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:bcwhu. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.