Examining Americans’ Attitudes toward Drone Strikes on the Eve of the 2012 Presidential Election

Abstract

On the eve of the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, we conducted an initial investigation into the determinants of people's attitudes toward the U.S. military's use of drone strikes in Pakistan. Drawing on existing research and theory in social and political psychology, we examined the effects of political ideology, framing effects (national security vs. human costs), value orientations, and the salience of Presidential candidate endorsement (Obama vs. Romney) on attitudes toward drone policy. The perceived relevance of security values and universalism values to judgments of drone policy mediated the relationship between ideology and drone policy attitudes. Additionally, a human costs frame increased the relevance of universalism values and decreased the relevance of security values to drone policy attitudes relative to a national security frame, and, through these values, decreased support for drone strikes. Neither of these effects was moderated by candidate salience. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, and identify several avenues for future research on this important and controversial policy.