IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v61y2024i3p413-428.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cyber scares and prophylactic policies: Crossnational evidence on the effect of cyberattacks on public support for surveillance

Author

Listed:
  • Amelia C Arsenault

    (Government Department, Cornell University)

  • Sarah E Kreps

    (Government Department, Cornell University)

  • Keren LG Snider

    (Department of Politics & Communication, Hadassah Academic College; School of Political Science, University of Haifa)

  • Daphna Canetti

    (School of Political Science, University of Haifa)

Abstract

While conventional terrorism has long been associated with enhanced support for surveillance, scholars have not determined whether variation in the type and outcome of terror attacks, including those emanating from cyberspace, influences public support for these policies. Further, existing studies typically examine public opinion in a single country, thereby failing to investigate cross-national trends in support for surveillance. In this article, we outline a theoretical relationship between cyberattacks and support for surveillance measures and then, through survey experiments conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel, explore whether variation in both the type (conventional or cyberterrorism) and outcome (non-lethal or lethal outcomes) of attacks influences support for a range of surveillance tactics. We find that while participants do not base their support for surveillance on attack type or outcome and do not differentiate between surveillance tactics when formulating their preferences, there are considerable cross-national differences in support. Participants from Israel generally responded more favorably to all forms of surveillance, independent of experimental treatment, with British respondents demonstrating high levels of support for CCTV cameras. American respondents, however, were generally less supportive of surveillance measures across treatments, with the differences being most notable in their relative reluctance to support the use of CCTV cameras. These findings have important implications not only for the sustainability of national policies but also for international collaboration to manage emerging risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Amelia C Arsenault & Sarah E Kreps & Keren LG Snider & Daphna Canetti, 2024. "Cyber scares and prophylactic policies: Crossnational evidence on the effect of cyberattacks on public support for surveillance," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(3), pages 413-428, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:61:y:2024:i:3:p:413-428
    DOI: 10.1177/00223433241233960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433241233960
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00223433241233960?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. Darren W. Davis & Brian D. Silver, 2004. "Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 28-46, January.
    2. Hintz, Arne & Dencik, Lina, 2016. "The politics of surveillance policy: UK regulatory dynamics after Snowden," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 5(3), pages 1-16.
    3. Leonie Huddy & Stanley Feldman & Charles Taber & Gallya Lahav, 2005. "Threat, Anxiety, and Support of Antiterrorism Policies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 593-608, July.
    4. FabianG. Neuner, 2020. "Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of Global Private EnvironmentalGovernance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 60-81, February.
    5. Press, Daryl G. & Sagan, Scott D. & Valentino, Benjamin A., 2013. "Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 188-206, February.
    6. Leonie Huddy & Stanley Feldman & Christopher Weber, 2007. "The Political Consequences of Perceived Threat and Felt Insecurity," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 614(1), pages 131-153, November.
    7. Page, Benjamin I. & Shapiro, Robert Y., 1983. "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 175-190, March.
    8. Eric Jardine & Nathaniel Porter & Ryan Shandler, 2024. "Cyberattacks and public opinion – The effect of uncertainty in guiding preferences," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(1), pages 103-118, January.
    9. Shandler, Ryan & Gross, Michael L. & Backhaus, Sophia & Canetti, Daphna, 2022. "Cyber Terrorism and Public Support for Retaliation – A Multi-Country Survey Experiment," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 850-868, April.
    10. Tomz, Michael & Weeks, Jessica L. P., 2020. "Public Opinion and Foreign Electoral Intervention," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 856-873, August.
    11. Viscusi, W Kip & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 2003. "Sacrificing Civil Liberties to Reduce Terrorism Risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 99-120, March-May.
    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. Kenneth D. Nguyen & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2405-2419, December.
    2. El-Mallakh, Nelly, 2020. "How do protests affect electoral choices? Evidence from Egypt," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 299-322.
    3. Konstantinos Drakos & Catherine Mueller, 2014. "On the Determinants of Terrorism Risk Concern in Europe," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 291-310, June.
    4. Scott Radnitz, 2022. "Perceived threats and the trade-off between security and human rights," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 367-381, May.
    5. Skarbek, David, 2011. "Governance and Prison Gangs," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(4), pages 702-716, November.
    6. Shelly C. McArdle & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2012. "The Dynamics of Evolving Beliefs, Concerns Emotions, and Behavioral Avoidance Following 9/11: A Longitudinal Analysis of Representative Archival Samples," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 744-761, April.
    7. Bozzoli, Carlos & Müller, Cathérine, 2011. "Perceptions and attitudes following a terrorist shock: Evidence from the UK," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(S1), pages 89-106.
    8. Helbling, Marc & Meierrieks, Daniel, 2022. "Terrorism and Migration: An Overview," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 60(2), pages 977-996.
    9. Pawan Jain & Mohamed Mekhaimer & Ronald W. Spahr & Mark A. Sunderman, 2024. "Freedom of choice impact on country-specific liquidity commonality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 265-309, July.
    10. Guikema, S.D. & Aven, T., 2010. "Is ALARP applicable to the management of terrorist risks?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(8), pages 823-827.
    11. Xinsheng Liu & Kent E. Portney & Jeryl L. Mumpower & Arnold Vedlitz, 2019. "Terrorism Risk Assessment, Recollection Bias, and Public Support for Counterterrorism Policy and Spending," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 553-570, March.
    12. Hayo, Bernd & Neumeier, Florian, 2017. "The (In)validity of the Ricardian equivalence theorem–findings from a representative German population survey," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 162-174.
    13. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    14. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    15. Author-Name: Alan S. Blinder & Alan B. Krueger, 2004. "What Does the Public Know about Economic Policy, and How Does It Know It?," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 35(1), pages 327-397.
    16. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers, 2013. "Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    18. April K. Clark & Michael Clark & Marie A. Eisenstein, 2014. "Stability and Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    19. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    20. Xiao Tang & Weiwei Chen & Tian Wu, 2018. "Do Authoritarian Governments Respond to Public Opinion on the Environment? Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.

    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:sae:joupea:v:61:y:2024:i:3:p:413-428. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.prio.no/ .

    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.