This study examines how voters respond to non-crisis military developments, focusing on general military, cyber, and nuclear capabilities. Using a survey experiment, it explores how information about these developments shapes voters’ preferences for US military spending. The findings show that voters are especially attentive to foreign cyber build-ups, with some assessing these developments rationally, while others rely on heuristics. These results offer a nuanced understanding of how emerging military technologies influence public perceptions and decision-making on military spending in the digital era.
AldrichJHGelpiCFeaverPReiflerJSharpKT. 2006. Foreign policy and the electoral connection.Annual Reviews in Political Science9:477–502.
2.
AllisonDMHerzogSKoJ (2022) Under the umbrella: Nuclear crises, extended deterrence, and public opinion.Journal of Conflict Resolution66(10): 1766–1796.
3.
AlmondGA (1950) The American people and foreign policy. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Brace & Company.
4.
Backhaus S, Gross ML, Waismel-Manor I, et al. (2020) A cyberterrorism effect? Emotional reactions to lethal attacks on critical infrastructure. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking23(9): 595–603.
5.
BakDChavezKRiderT (2020) Domestic political consequences of international rivalry.Journal of Conflict Resolution64(4): 703–728.
BartelsLM (1994) The American public’s defense spending preferences in the post-Cold War era.Public Opinion Quarterly58(4): 479–508.
8.
BaumMAGroelingT (2009) Shot by the messenger: Partisan cues and public opinion regarding national security and war.Political Behavior31(2): 157–186.
9.
BaumMAPhilipBP (2019) Media, public opinion, and foreign policy in the age of social media.The Journal of Politics81(2): 747–756.
10.
BerinskyAJ (2009) In time of war. Chicago: IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
BodderySSGraigRK (2021) Presidential use of diversionary drone force and public support.Research & Politics8(2): 20531680211019904.
12.
BrenanM (2021) Cyberterrorism tops list of 11 potential threats to U.S. Gallup. Available from: https://news. gallup. com/poll/339974/cyberterrorism-tops-list-potential-threats.aspx.
13.
BrewerPRGrossKAdayS, et al. (2004) International trust and public opinion about world affairs.American Journal of Political Science48(1): 93–109.
14.
BrewerPRSteenbergenMR (2002) All against all: How beliefs about human nature shape foreign policy opinions. Political Psychology23(1): 39–58.
15.
CastanoEBonacossaAGriesP (2016) National images as integrated schemas: Subliminal primes of image attributes shape foreign policy preferences.Political Psychology37(3): 351–366.
16.
ChanleyVA (2002) Trust in government in the aftermath of 9/11: Determinants and consequences.Political Psychology23(3): 469–483.
17.
CrocoSEHamnerMJMcDonaldJA (2021) At what cost? Reexamining audience costs in realistic settings. The Journal of Politics83(1): 8–22.
18.
DillJSchubigerLI (2021) Attitudes toward the use of force: Instrumental imperatives, moral principles, and international law.American Journal of Political Science65(3): 612–633.
19.
DillJSaganSDValentinoB (2022) Inconstant care: Public attitudes towards force protection and civilian casualties in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel. Journal of Conflict Resolution67: 00220027221119768.
20.
FarrellHGlaserCL (2017) The role of effects, saliencies and norms in US cyberwar doctrine.Journal of Cybersecurity3(1): 7–17.
21.
GadarianSK (2010) The politics of threat: How terrorism news shapes foreign policy attitudes.The Journal of Politics72(2): 469–483.
22.
GartzkeELindsayJR (2015) Weaving tangled webs: Offense, defense, and deception in cyberspace.Security Studies24(2): 316–348.
23.
GoertzelT (1987) Public opinion concerning military spending in the United States: 1937–1985.Journal of Political & Military Sociology15: 61–72.
24.
GomezMAWhyteC (2021) Breaking the myth of cyber doom: Securitization and normalization of novel threats.International Studies Quarterly65: 1137–1150.
25.
GroelingTBaumMA (2008) Crossing the water’s edge: Elite rhetoric, media coverage, and the rally-round-the-flag phenomenon.The Journal of Politics70(4): 1065–1085.
26.
GrossMLCanettiDVashdiDR (2017) Cyberterrorism: Its effects on psychological well-being, public confidence and political attitudes. Journal of Cybersecurity3(1): 49–58.
27.
GuisingerASaundersEN (2017) Mapping the boundaries of elite cues: How elites shape mass opinion across international issues.International Studies Quarterly61: 425–441.
28.
HartleyTRussettB (1992) Public opinion and the common defense: Who governs military spending in the United States?American Political Science Review86(4): 905–915.
29.
HedgecockKSukinL (2022) Responding to uncertainty: The importance of covertness in support for retaliation to cyber and kinetic attacks.Journal of Conflict Resolution67: 00220027231153580.
30.
HerrmannRKIserniaPSegattiP (2009) Attachment to the nation and international relations: Dimensions of identity and their relationship to war and peace.Political Psychology30(5): 721–754.
31.
HerrmannRKFischerkellerMP (1995) Beyond the enemy image and spiral model: Cognitive–strategic research after the cold war. International Organization49(3): 415–450.
32.
HerrmannRKTetlockPEVisserPS (1999) Mass public decisions on go to war: A cognitive–interactionist framework. American Political Science Review93(3): 553–573.
33.
HiggsRKilduffA (1993) Public opinion: A powerful predictor of US defense spending.Defence and Peace Economics4(3): 227–238.
34.
HorowitzMC (2016) Public opinion and the politics of the killer robots debate.Research & Politics3(1): 2053168015627183.
35.
HuffCKertzerJD (2018) How the public defines terrorism.American Journal of Political Science62(1): 55–71.
36.
JardineEPorterNShandlerR (2024) Cyberattacks and public opinion—The effect of uncertainty in guiding preferences.Journal of Peace Research61: 00223433231218178.
37.
JarvisLMacdonaldSWhitingA (2017) Unpacking cyberterrorism discourse: Specificity, status, and scale in news media constructions of threat.European Journal of International Security2(1): 64–87.
38.
JonesBTMattiacciE (2019) A manifesto, in 140 characters or fewer: Social media as a tool of rebel diplomacy.British Journal of Political Science49(2): 739–761.
39.
JosephMFPoznanskyM (2018) Media technology, covert action, and the politics of exposure.Journal of Peace Research55(3): 320–335.
40.
JurkowitzMMitchellAShearerE, et al. (2020) U.S. media polarization and the 2020 election: A nation divided. Pew Research Center. Available from: https://www.journalism.org/2020/ 01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/.
41.
KertzerJD (2017) Resolve, time, and risk.International Organization71(S1): S109–S136.
42.
KertzerJD (2018) Public opinion and foreign policy. Oxford Bibliographies in International Relations. New York:Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0244.
43.
KertzerJD (2023) Public opinion about foreign policy. Oxford Handbooks in Political Psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
KertzerJDBrutgerR (2016) Decomposing audience costs: Bringing the audience back into audience cost theory.American Journal of Political Science60(1): 234–249.
45.
KertzerJDZeitzoffT (2017) A bottom-up theory of public opinion about foreign policy.American Journal of Political Science61(3): 543–558.
46.
KnechtT (2010) Paying attention to foreign affairs: How public opinion affects presidential decision making. University Park: PA: Penn State Press.
47.
KnechtTWeatherfordMS (2006) Public opinion and foreign policy: The stages of presidential decision making. International Studies Quarterly50(3): 705–727.
48.
KostyukNWayneC (2021) The microfoundations of state cybersecurity: Cyber risk perceptions and the mass public.Journal of Global Security Studies6(2): ogz077.
49.
KrepsSSchneiderJ (2019) Escalation firebreaks in the cyber, conventional, and nuclear domains: Moving beyond effects-based logics.Journal of Cybersecurity5(1): tyz007.
50.
LawsonST (2019) Cybersecurity discourse in the United States: Cyber-doom rhetoric and beyond. Milton Park: UK: Routledge.
51.
LealDL (2005) American public opinion toward the military: Differences by race, gender, and class?Armed Forces & Society32(1): 123–138.
52.
LevyJS (2003) Political psychology and foreign policy. In: Sears DO, Huddy L and Jervis R (eds) Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford University Press, 253–284.
53.
Lin-GreenbergEMilonopoulosT (2021) Private eyes in the sky: Emerging technology and the political consequences of eroding government secrecy.Journal of Conflict Resolution65: 0022002720987285.
54.
LupiaAMcCubbinsMDArthurL, et al. (1998) The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
McDonaldJWalshJI (2021) The costs of conflict and support for the use of force: Accounting for information equivalence in survey experiments.Journal of Experimental Political Science8(2): 195–202.
56.
NincicMRamosJM (2012) The sources of patriotism: Survey and experimental evidence.Foreign Policy Analysis8(4): 373–388.
57.
PalanSSchitterC (2018) Prolific. Ac—A subject pool for online experiments.Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance17: 22–27.
58.
PressDGSaganSDValentinoBA (2013) Atomic aversion: Experimental evidence on taboos, traditions, and the non-use of nuclear weapons. American Political Science Review107(1): 188–206.
59.
RathbunBCSteinR (2020) Greater goods: Morality and attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons.Journal of Conflict Resolution64(5): 787–816.
RomanoskySBoudreauxB (2021) Private-sector attribution of cyber incidents: Benefits and risks to the US government.International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence34(3): 463–493.
62.
RosciniM (2014) Cyber operations and the use of force in international law. Oxford: UK: Oxford University Press.
63.
SchatzRTStaubELavineH (1999) On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus constructive patriotism.Political Psychology20(1): 151–174.
64.
SchwartzJ (2024) When foreign countries push the button: Public support for foreign nuclear use.International Security38(5): 543–560.
65.
ShandlerRGomezMA (2022) The hidden threat of cyber-attacks—Undermining public confidence in government.Journal of Information Technology & Politics20: 1–16.
66.
ShandlerRGrossMLBackhausS, et al. (2022b) Cyber terrorism and public support for retaliation—A multi-country survey experiment.British Journal of Political Science52: 1–19.
67.
ShandlerRSniderKGLCanettiD (2022a) The political psychology of cyberterrorism. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 565–581.
68.
ShandlerRGrossMLCanettiD (2021) A fragile public preference for cyber strikes: Evidence from survey experiments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel.Contemporary Security Policy42(2): 135–162.
69.
ShandlerRGrossMLCanettiD (2023) Cyberattacks, psychological distress, and military escalation: An internal meta-analysis.Journal of Global Security Studies8(1): ogac042.
70.
SheaferTGabayI (2009) Mediated public diplomacy: A strategic contest over international agenda building and frame building.Political Communication26(4): 447–467.
71.
Simon CA, Lovrich NP, Liu B, et al. (2018) Citizen support for military expenditure post–9/11: Exploring the role of race, ethnicity, and place of birth. Armed Forces & Society44(4): 688–706.
72.
SmetanaMOndercoM (2023) 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): 183–209.
73.
SmetanaMVrankaMRosendorfO (2023) The lesser evil? Experimental evidence on the strength of nuclear and chemical weapon “taboos”. Conflict Management and Peace Science40(1): 3–21.
74.
SonSParkJH (2023) Nonproliferation information and attitude change: Evidence from South Korea.Journal of Conflict Resolution67(6): 1095–1127.
75.
SukinL (2020) Credible nuclear security commitments can backfire: Explaining domestic support for nuclear weapons acquisition in South Korea.Journal of Conflict Resolution64(6): 1011–1042.
76.
TomzMRWeeksJL (2020) Human rights and public support for war.The Journal of Politics82(1): 182–194.
77.
WalshJI (2015) Precision weapons, civilian casualties, and support for the use of force.Political Psychology36(5): 507–523.
78.
WlezienC (1995) The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending.American Journal of Political Science39: 981–1000.
79.
WoodBDPeakeJS (1998) The dynamics of foreign policy agenda setting. American Political Science Review92(1): 173–184.
80.
ZallerJFeldmanS (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences.American Journal of Political Science27: 579–616.
81.
ZallerJR (1992) The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
