How do Americans’ core beliefs about punishment, and their intuitions about which actors deserve blame, shape attitudes toward the use of force against a hostile state? I apply insights from recent work in social psychology to investigate the causal mechanisms linking punitive beliefs to support for a nuclear strike. In a large-N study, I find that the strength and ethical logic underlying beliefs about punishment affect attitudes regarding the use of nuclear weapons, and who to blame for the crisis, which mediates the causal pathway. Those who ground their support for severe punishment not in the logic of moral justice, but in societal benefit, are more likely to hold foreign citizens socially responsible for their state's actions.
AharoniEFridlundAJ (2012) Punishment without reason: Isolating retribution in lay punishment of criminal offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law18: 599–625.
2.
AnsolabehereSSchaffnerBF (2014) Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis, 22(3): 285–303.
3.
BaronJRitovI (2009) The role of probability of detection in judgments of punishment. Journal of Legal Analysis1(2): 553–590.
4.
BaumMAPotterPBK (2015) War and Democratic Constraint: How the Public Influences Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BaumMAPotterPBK (2019) Media, public opinion, and foreign policy in the age of social Media. The Journal of Politics81(2): 747–756.
6.
BerinskyAJ (2009) In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago studies in American politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
BowenTGoldfienMGrahamM (2022) Public opinion and nuclear use: Evidence from factorial experiments. The Journal of Politics85(1): 345–350.
9.
BuckholtzJWMartinJWTreadwayMT, et al. (2015) From blame to punishment: Disrupting prefrontal cortex activity reveals norm enforcement mechanisms. Neuron87(6): 1369–1380.
10.
CarlsmithKM (2006) The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology42(4): 437–451.
11.
CarlsmithKM (2008) On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research21(2): 119–137.
12.
CarlsmithKMSoodAM (2009) The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology45(1): 191–196.
13.
CarpenterCMontgomeryAH (2020) The stopping power of norms: Saturation bombing, civilian immunity, and U.S. Attitudes toward the laws of war. International Security45(2): 140–169.
14.
CedermanL-EGleditschKSBuhaugH (2013) Inequality, Grievances, and Civil War. Cambridge Studies in Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084161.
15.
CrockettMJÖzdemirYFehrE (2014) The value of vengeance and the demand for deterrence. Journal of Experimental Psychology143(6): 2279–2286.
16.
CrocoS (2011) The decider’s dilemma. American Political Science Review105(3): 457–477.
17.
DarleyJM (2009) Morality in the law: The psychological foundations of citizens’ desires to punish transgressions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science5(1): 1–23.
18.
DarleyJMCarlsmithKMRobinsonPH (2000) Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior24(6): 659–683.
19.
DelgadoMRLiJSchillerD, et al. (2008) The role of the striatum in aversive learning and aversive prediction errors. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences363(1511): 3787–3800.
20.
de QuervainDJ-FFischbacherUTreyerV, et al. (2004) The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science305(5688): 1254–1258.
21.
DillJSaganSDValentinoBA (2022) Kettles of hawks: Public opinion on the nuclear taboo and noncombatant immunity in the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Israel. Security Studies31(1): 1–31.
22.
EllsworthPGrossS (1994) Hardening of the attitudes: Americans’ views on the death penalty. Journal of Social Issues50(2): 19–52.
23.
EllsworthPRossL (1983) Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime & Delinquency29(1): 116–169.
24.
FeaverPDGelpiC (2004) Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
GelpiCFeaverPReiflerJA (2009) Paying the Human Costs of War: American Public Opinion and Casualties in Military Conflicts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
HaberSNKnutsonB (2010) The reward circuit: Linking primate anatomy and human imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology: Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology35(1): 4–26.
28.
HaworthARSaganSDValentinoBA (2019) What do Americans really think about conflict with nuclear North Korea? The answer is both reassuring and disturbing. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists75(4): 179–186.
29.
HerronKGJenkins-SmithHC (2002) U.S. Perceptions of nuclear security in the wake of the Cold War: Comparing public and elite belief systems. International Studies Quarterly46(4): 451–479.
30.
HicksRTingleyD (2011) Causal mediation analysis. The Stata Journal11(4): 605–619.
31.
HillesundS (2019) Choosing whom to target: Horizontal inequality and the risk of civil and communal violence. The Journal of Conflict Resolution63(2): 528–554.
32.
HuddyLKhatibN (2007) American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 63–77.
33.
ImaiKKeeleLTingleyD (2010a) A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods15(4): 309–334.
34.
ImaiKKeeleLYamamotoT (2010b) Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science25(1): 51–71.
35.
Israel-TrummelMStreeterS (2022) Police abuse or just deserts?Public Opinion Quarterly86(S1): 499–522.
36.
JacksonAD (2018) Why has there been no people’s power rebellion in North Korea?European Journal of Korean Studies18(1): 1–34.
37.
JavelineD (2003) The role of blame in collective action: Evidence from Russia. The American Political Science Review97(1): 107–121.
38.
JentlesonBW (1992) The pretty prudent public: Post post-Vietnam American opinion on the use of military force. International Studies Quarterly36(1): 49–73.
39.
JohnsonEJHersheyJMeszaroJ, et al. (1993) Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty7(1): 35–51.
KableJWGlimcherPW (2007) The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nature Neuroscience10(12): 1625–1633.
43.
KertzerJD (2022) Re-assessing elite–public gaps in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science66(3): 539–553.
44.
KertzerJDPowersKERathbunBC, et al. (2014) Moral support: How moral values shape foreign policy attitudes. The Journal of Politics76(3): 825–840.
45.
KertzerJDZeitzoffT (2017) A bottom-up theory of public opinion about foreign policy. American Journal of Political Science61(3): 543–558.
46.
KimhiSCanetti-NisimDHirschbergerG (2009) Terrorism in the eyes of the beholder: The impact of causal attributions on perceptions of violence. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology15(1): 75–95.
47.
KochLLWellsM (2021) Still taboo? Citizens’ attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons. Journal of Global Security Studies6(3): 1–18.
48.
KrupnikovYet al. (2021) Convenience samples in political science experiments. In GreenDPDruckmanJ (eds), Advances in Experimental Political Science.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
LealMMMusgraveP (2023) Hitting back or holding back in cyberspace: Experimental evidence regarding Americans’ responses to cyberattacks. Conflict Management and Peace Science40(1): 42–64.
50.
LibermanP (2006) An eye for an eye: Public support for war against evildoers. International Organization60(3): 687–722.
51.
LibermanP (2007) Punitiveness and U.S. elite support for the 1991 Persian gulf war. The Journal of Conflict Resolution51(1): 3–32.
52.
LibermanP (2013) Retributive support for international punishment and torture. Journal of Conflict Resolution57(2): 285–306.
53.
LibermanP (2014) War and torture as “just deserts”. Public Opinion Quarterly78(1): 47–70.
54.
LibermanPSkitkaL (2019) Vicarious retribution in US public support for war against Iraq. Security Studies28(2): 189–215.
55.
LickelBMillerNSternstromDM, et al. (2006) Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame in intergroup aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review10(4): 372–390.
56.
LoewensteinGWebeeEHseeC, et al. (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin127(2): 267–286.
57.
MarshallJYudkinDACrockettMJ (2021) Children punish third parties to satisfy both consequentialist and retributive motives. Nature Human Behaviour5(3): 361–368.
58.
McDermottD (2001) The permissibility of punishment. Law and Philosophy20(4): 403–432.
59.
McDermottRLopezACHatemiPK (2017) “Blunt not the heart, enrage it”: The psychology of revenge and deterrence. Texas National Security Review1(1): 69–88.
60.
MontgomeryJMNyhanBTorresM (2018) How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science62(3): 760–775.
61.
NisbettRERossL (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
62.
OnealJRRussettB (2001) Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W. W. Norton.
63.
PaulTV (2009) The Tradition of Non-use of Nuclear Weapons. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
64.
PrattoFStallworthLMConway-LanzS (1998) Social dominance orientation and the ideological legitimization of social policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology28(20): 1853–1875.
65.
PressDGSaganSDValentinoBA (2013) Atomic aversion: Experimental evidence on taboos. Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons. American Political Science Review107(1): 188–206.
66.
RathbunBCKertzerJDReiflerJ, et al. (2016) Taking foreign policy personally: Personal values and foreign policy attitudes. International Studies Quarterly60(1): 124–137.
67.
RathbunBCSteinR (2020) Greater goods: Morality and attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons. Journal of Conflict Resolution64(5): 787–816.
68.
RubinMDonkinC (2022) Exploratory hypothesis tests can be more compelling than confirmatory hypothesis tests. Philosophical Psychology: 1–29. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2113771.
69.
SaganSDValentinoBA (2017) Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran: What Americans really think about using nuclear weapons and killing noncombatants. International Security42(1): 41–79.
70.
SaganSDValentinoBA (2019) Just war and unjust soldiers: American public opinion on the moral equality of combatants. Ethics and International Affairs33(4): 411–444.
71.
SchulzkeM (2019) Pursuing Moral Warfare: Ethics in American, British, and Israeli Counterinsurgency. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
72.
SidaniusJMitchellMHaleyH, et al. (2006) Support for harsh criminal sanctions and criminal justice beliefs: A social dominance perspective. Social Justice Research19(4): 433–449.
73.
SlovicPMertzCKMarkowitzDM, et al. (2020) Virtuous violence from the war room to death row. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(34): 20474–20482.
74.
SmetanaMOndercoM (2022a) Elite–public gaps in attitudes to nuclear weapons: New evidence from a survey of German citizens and parliamentarians. International Studies Quarterly66(2): sqac017.
75.
SmetanaMOndercoM (2022b) From Moscow with a mushroom cloud? Russian public attitudes to the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict with NATO. Journal of Conflict Resolution67(2–3): 1–27.
76.
SmetanaMVrankaM (2021) How moral foundations shape public approval of nuclear, chemical, and conventional strikes: New evidence from experimental surveys. International Interactions47(2): 374–390.
77.
SteinRM (2015) War and revenge: Explaining conflict initiation by democracies. American Political Science Review109(3): 556–573.
78.
SteinRM (2019) Vengeful Citizens, Violent States: A Theory of War and Revenge. New York: Cambridge University Press.
79.
TannenwaldN (2007) The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945. New York: Cambridge University Press.
80.
TomzM (2007) Domestic audience costs in international relations: An experimental approach. International Organization61(4): 821–840.
81.
TwardawskiMTangKTYHilbigBE (2020) Is it all about retribution? The flexibility of punishment goals. Social Justice Research33(2): 195–218.
82.
TylerTRWeberR (1982) Support for the death penalty: Instrumental response to crime or symbolic attitude?Law & Society Review17(1): 121–145.
83.
WashburnANSkitkaLJ (2015) Motivated and displaced revenge: Remembering 9/11 suppresses opposition to military intervention in Syria (for some). Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy15(1): 89–104.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
