This article relies upon the recreancy theorem to empirically assess the extent to which people’s desires for technology efficacy, personal security, and social justice affect their trust in and support for government use of network surveillance as it is applied to local law enforcement and homeland security. The recreancy theorem complements technology adoption models in that it focuses upon public assessments of innovations as they are managed by societal institutions, thereby providing conceptual congruity between technology adoption and public assessments of institutional competency and integrity. Based upon the results of a social survey of 1488 adults living in the contiguous United States, the article expands our conceptual understanding of public opinions of network surveillance and empirically documents public demand for network surveillance that fosters goals of social justice more so than goals of self-interest.
AbolhasaniZHassanzadehAGhazinoorySPourezzatA (2014) A justice-oriented innovation system: A grounded theory approach. Social Justice Research27: 369–394.
2.
AlarioMFreudenburgW (2003) The paradoxes of modernity: Scientific advances, environmental problems, and risks to the social fabric. Sociological Forum18: 193–214.
3.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2020) Documents Confirm How the NSA’s Surveillance Procedures Threaten American’s Privacy. Washington, DC: ACLU.
4.
AndersonJRainieLLuchsingerA (2018) Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
5.
AquinasT (1952) Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas Volume 1. 1952 Edition of Britannica Great Books Number 19. London: Britannica Books.
6.
BallKDegli EspostiSDibbSPavoneVSantiago-GomezE (2019) Institutional trustworthiness and national security governance: Evidence from six European countries. Governance32: 103–121.
7.
BarberB (1983) The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
8.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society (trans RitterMA). London: SAGE.
9.
BenthamJ (1948 [1789]) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and of Legislation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
10.
BlauPM (1964) Exchange & Power in Social Life. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
11.
BlomqvistK (2005) Trust in a dynamic environment: Fast trust as a threshold condition for asymmetric technology partnership formation in the ICT sector. In: Bijlsma-FrankemaKWoolthuisRK (eds) Trust Under Pressure: Empirical Investigations of Trust and Trust Building in Uncertain Circumstances. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 127–141.
12.
BollenKA (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
13.
BourdieuPWacquantLJD (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
CayfordMPietersWvan GelderPHAJM (2020) Wanting it all: Public perceptions of the effectiveness, cost, and privacy of surveillance technology. Journal of Information, Communication, and Ethics in Society18: 10–27.
15.
ChilversJ (2012) Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Science Communication35: 283–310.
16.
ColquittJAScottBALePineJA (2007) Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology92: 909–927.
17.
CookTEGronkeP (2005) The skeptical American: Revisiting the meanings of trust in government and confidence in institutions. Journal of Politics67: 784–803.
18.
CooperCAKnottsHGBrennanKM (2008) The importance of trust in government for public administration: The case of zoning. Public Administration Review68: 459–468.
19.
CopeMRSlackTBlanchardTCLeeMR (2016) It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you place the blame: Shifting perceptions of recreancy in the context of the deepwater horizon oil spill. Rural Sociology81: 295–315.
20.
CronbachLJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16: 297–334.
21.
CurleyE (1994) Leviathan, with Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
22.
Degli-EspostiSPavoneVSantiago-GomezE (2017) Aligning security and privacy: The case of deep packet inspection. In: BellanovaRČasJBurgessJPFriedewaldMPeisslW (eds) Surveillance, Privacy and Security: Citizens’ Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 71–90.
23.
DeutschM (1958) Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution2: 265–279.
EarleTCCvetkovichGT (1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
26.
EllisPD (2010) The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: An Introduction to Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis and the Interpretation of Research Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
FarooqHMOtaibiNM (2018) Optimal Machine Learning Algorithms for Cyber Threat Detection. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
28.
FeaginJR (2001) Social justice and sociology: Agendas for the twenty-first century. American Sociological Review66: 1–20.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
31.
FreudenburgWR (1993) Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces71: 909–932.
32.
GiddensA (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
GillDAPicouJSRitchieLA (2012) The Exxon Valdez and BP oil spills: A comparison of initial social and psychological impacts. American Behavioral Scientist56: 3–23.
34.
HardinR (1996) Trustworthiness. Ethics107: 26–42.
35.
HickmanLAAlexanderTM. (1998) The Essential Dewey, Volume 1: Pragmatism, Education, Democracy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
36.
HitlanPRainieL (2019) Facebook Algorithms and Personal Data. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
37.
HomansG (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
38.
HuqAZTylerTRSchulhoferSJ (2011) Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement? The influence of the purposes and targets of policing?Psychological Public Policy Law17: 419–450.
39.
JamesW (1981 [1890]) The Principles of Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
JostJTvan der ToornJ (2012) System justification theory. In: van LangePAMKruglanskiAWHigginsET (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London: SAGE, pp. 313–343.
42.
JostJTBanajiMRNosekBA (2004) A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status Quo. Political Psychology25: 881–919.
43.
KaczmarzS (1937) Angenäherte Auflösung von Systemen linearer Gleichungen (PDF), Bulletin International de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences et des Lettres. Classe des Sciences Mathématiques et Naturelles: Série A, Sciences Mathématiques35: 355–357.
44.
KantI (1964 [1785]) Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (trans PatonHJ). New York: Harper and Row.
45.
KimSLeeJ (2012) E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review72: 819–828.
46.
KostkaGLSteinackerLMeckelM (2021) Between security and convenience: Facial recognition technology in the eyes of citizens in China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Public Understanding of Science30: 671–690.
47.
LaVigneNGLowrySDwyerAMarkmanJ (2011) Using Public Surveillance Systems for Crime Control and Prevention: A Practical Guide for Law Enforcement and Their Municipal Partners. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
48.
LeviMStokerL (2000) Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science3: 475–507.
49.
LindbergS (2019) Scientists’ Perspectives on the Risks and Benefits of Gene Editing Technologies in Agriculture: Assessing for Reflexive Scientization (Theses and dissertations). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
50.
LyengarSMasseyDS (2019) Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116: 7656–7661.
51.
MaddenM (2014) Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowden Era. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
MillJS (1998 [1861]) Utilitarianism, edited with an introduction by Roger Crisp. New York: Oxford University Press.
54.
National Science Foundation (2020) Algorithms for Threat Detection (ATD) Program Solicitation: NSF 20-531. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
55.
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) (2014) Overview of Predictive Policing. Washington, DC: NIJ.
56.
OlmsteadKSmithA (2017) Americans and Cybersecurity. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
57.
OzyerTBakshiSAlhajjR (eds) (2019) Social Networks and Surveillance for Society. New York: Springer.
58.
PavoneVDegli EspostiS (2012) Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: Beyond the trade-off between privacy and security. Public Understanding of Science21: 556–572.
59.
PecharEBernauerTMayerF (2018) Beyond political ideology: The impact of attitudes towards government and corporations on trust in science. Science Communication40: 291–313.
60.
PierceR (2013) A role for social justice in science communication? In: GordonJDahlstromMFPriestS (eds) Ethical Issues in Science Communication: A Theory-Based Approach. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, pp. 233–234.
RainieLAndersonJ (2017a) Code-Dependent: Pros and Cons of the Algorithm Age. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
63.
RainieLAndersonJ (2017b) The Internet of Things Connectivity Binge: What Are the Implications?Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
64.
RiedlDL (2018) Inclusion and Civic Engagement in Public Technology Building and Planning. Evanston, IL: Brenton Institute for Broadband and Society.
65.
RitchieLAGillDAFarnhamCN (2013) Recreancy revisited: Beliefs about institutional failure following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Society and Natural Resources26: 655–671.
66.
RogersER (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn.New York, NY: Free Press.
67.
RothGWittichC (eds) (1978) Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
68.
RousseauJ-J (1761) The Social Contract and Discourses. London: J. M. Dent and Sons.
69.
SappSGDowning-MatibagT (2009) Consumer acceptance of food irradiation: A test of the recreancy theorem. International Journal of Consumer Studies33: 417–424.
70.
SappSGArnotCFallonJFleckTSoorholtzDSutton-VermeulenMWilsonJJH (2009) Consumer trust in the U.S. food system: An examination of the recreancy theorem. Rural Sociology74: 525–545.
71.
SappSG, PFKorschingCArnotJHHWilsonJHH (2013) Science communication and the rationality of public opinion formation. Science Communication35: 734–757.
72.
SAS (2020) PROC CALIS. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System.
73.
ScheufeleDA (2014) Science Communication as Political Communication. Washington, DC: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.
74.
SchoormanFDMayerRCDavisJH (2007) An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review32: 344–354.
75.
SiegristMCvetkovichG (2000) Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis20: 713–720.
76.
SuhayECloudEHeathENashE (2019) Recommended Practices for Science Communication with Policy Makers. Washington, DC: American University School of Public Affairs.
77.
SunshineJTylerTR (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law Sociology Review37: 513–548.
78.
TolbertCJMossbergerK (2006) The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review66: 354–369.
79.
TylerTR (2017) Procedural justice and policing: A rush to Judgment?Annual Review of Law and Social Science13: 21–225.
80.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) (2009) Current Practices in Electronic Surveillance of Serious and Organized Crime. Washington, DC: UNODC.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2019) Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
83.
van DammeAPauwelsLSvenssonR (2015) Why do Swedes cooperate with the police? A SEM analysis of Tyler’s procedural justice model. European Journal of Criminology Policy Research21: 15–33.
84.
Van den BroekTOomsMFriedewaldMvan LieshoutMRungS (2017) Privacy and security: Citizens’ desires for an equal footing. In: MichaelF (ed.) Surveillance, Privacy and Security: Citizens’ Perspectives—PRIO New Security Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 15–35.
85.
VerboonPGoslingaS (2009) The role of fairness in tax compliance. Netherlands Journal of Psychology65: 136–145.
86.
WelchmanG (1982) The Hut Six Story: Breaking the Enigma Codes, 2nd Revised edn. M. M. Baldwin. New York: McGraw-Hill.
87.
WrightS (1934) The method of path coefficients. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics5(3): 161–215.
88.
WuXNWangEP (2013) Outcome favorability as a boundary condition to voice effect on people’s reactions to public policymaking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology43: 329–337.
89.
ZhangSZhouJ (2018) Social justice and public cooperation intention: Mediating role of political trust and moderating effect of outcome dependence. Frontiers in Psychology9: 1381.
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.
