Military technology does not exist in a vacuum; it is mediated by difficult choices about development and use. Public attitudes influence these choices, but emerging technologies present a challenge: assessing public opinion without a clear picture of the technology's use. Focusing on autonomous weapon systems, we argue that attitude stability depends on moral conviction and concern with inherent characteristics or outcomes. Combining these dimensions into four reasoning categories creates a new framework for attitudes toward emerging technologies, validated with two Cooperative Congressional Election Study surveys. We find that moral conviction is prevalent, current opposition heterogeneous, and some attitudes depend on outcomes, especially civilian protection.
AndersonKReisnerDWaxmanMC (2014) Adapting the law of armed conflict to autonomous weapon systems.International Law Studies90: 386–411.
2.
ArkinRC (2013) Lethal autonomous systems and the plight of the non-combatant.AISB Quarterly137: 4–12.
3.
Australia, Canada, Estonia, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States (2024) Draft articles on autonomous weapon systems – prohibitions and other regulatory measures on the basis of international humanitarian law (“IHL”). United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. August 26.
4.
BaumMAGroelingT (2010) Reality asserts itself: Public opinion on Iraq and the elasticity of rseality. International Organization64(3): 443–479.
HorowitzM (2016) Public opinion and the politics of the killer robots debate.Research and Politics3(1): 1–8.
19.
HorowitzMKrepsSFuhrmannM (2016) Separating fact from fiction in the debate over drone proliferation.International Security41(2): 2–42.
20.
HorowitzMCKahnLMacdonaldJ, et al. (2024) Adopting AI: How familiarity breeds both trust and contempt. AI & Society39(4): 1721–1735.
21.
Human Rights Watch (2014) Advancing the Debate on Killer Robots. New York: Human Rights Watch.
22.
Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (2012) Losing humanity. Human Rights Watch. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/11/19/losing-humanity/case-against-killer-robots.
KeckMSikkinkK (1998) Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
26.
KertzerJPowersKRathbunB, et al. (2014) Moral support.Journal of Politics76(3): 825–840.
27.
KoberA (2008) The Israel Defense Forces in the Second Lebanon War. Journal of Strategic Studies31(1): 3–40.
28.
KrepsS (2014) Flying under the radar.Research and Politics1(1): 1–7.
29.
KrepsSMaxeyS (2018) Mechanisms of morality.Journal of Conflict Resolution62(8): 1814–1842.
30.
KrinerD (2010) After the Rubicon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
KrinerDShenF (2014) Responding to war on Capitol Hill: Battlefield Casualties, congressional response, and public support for the war in Iraq. American Journal of Political Science58(1): 157–174.
LuttrellATogansLJ (2021) The stability of moralized attitudes over time.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin47(4): 551–564.
34.
MacdonaldJSchneiderJ (2015) Presidential risk orientation and force employment decisions.Journal of Conflict Resolution61(3): 511–536.
35.
MeromG (2003) How Democracies Lose Small Wars. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
PressDGSaganSDValentinoBA (2013) Atomic aversion.American Political Science Review107(1): 188–206.
37.
RathbunBCSteinR (2020) Greater goods: Morality and attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons. Journal of Conflict Resolution64(5): 787–816.
38.
RathbunBCSteinRM (2020) Greater goods.Journal of Conflict Resolution64(5): 787–816.
39.
RosendorfOSmetanaMVrankaM (2022) Autonomous weapons and ethical judgments. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology28(2): 177–183.
40.
RosendorfOSmetanaMVrankaM (2024) Algorithmic aversion? Experimental evidence on the elasticity of public attitudes to killer robots.Security Studies33(1): 115–145.
41.
RyanT (2014) Reconsidering moral issues in politics.Journal of Politics76(2): 380–397.
42.
RyanT (2019) Actions versus consequences in political arguments.Journal of Politics81(2): 426–440.
43.
SaganSDValentinoBA (2017) Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran.International Security42(1): 41–79.
44.
SaundersENSechserTS (2010) The army you have.International Studies Quarterly54(2): 481–511.
SchmittMN (2013) Autonomous weapon systems and international humanitarian law.Harvard National Security Journal4: 1–37.
47.
SkitkaLA (2010) The psychology of moral conviction.Social and Personality Psychology Compass4(4): 267–281.
48.
SkitkaLHansonBEMorganGS, et al. (2021) The psychology of moral conviction.Annual Review of Psychology72: 347–366.
49.
SkitkaLAMorganGS (2014) The social and political implications of moral conviction.Advances in Political Psychology35(1): 95–110.
50.
State Department (2024) Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy.
51.
TannerCMedinDLIlievR (2008) Influence of deontological versus consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects.European Journal of Social Psychology38: 757–769.
52.
UNIDIR (2015) The Weaponization of Increasing Autonomous Technologies.Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.
53.
WalshJI (2015) Precision weapons, civilian casualties, and support for the use of force. Political Psychology36(5): 507–523.
54.
YoungKLCarpenterC (2018) Does science fiction affect political fact?International Studies Quarterly62: 562–576.
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.
