Our results reflect that international approval is associated with both higher public support and greater perceived legitimacy for a drone strike. Further, we find that the public emphasizes international law as the basis for support and legitimacy, suggesting a belief in multilateralism for normative reasons.
In this report, we explore the ethics of autonomous vehicles, including decision-making protocols, accountability for errors, the potential for unintended consequences, and data privacy issues.
COVID-19 booster uptake among US adults: Assessing the impact of vaccine attributes, incentives, and context in a choice-based experiment
Our analysis suggests several findings. First, booster uptake is not a function of anticipated protection against the COVID-19 virus. Second, monetary incentives significantly increase a person’s willingness to receive a booster. Finally, the vaccine manufacturer does not affect the unvaccinated but strongly moderates vaccinated individuals’ attitudes about the booster.
Our findings show that drone proliferation in militaries and commercial sectors across the world will continue-and likely accelerate-in the following decades. Understanding the rationale and dangers of drone proliferation, and usage by especially stateless groups, will provide countries with potential policy solutions to curb terrorist groups’ weaponization of drones.
We use “legal-normative” and “strategic-rational” cognitive frames to explain how U.S. presidents understand drone warfare and decide to use strikes abroad. Our analysis suggests U.S. presidents’ decide to use drone strikes for four reasons: instrumental, prerogative, prudential, and cosmopolitan.
Our analysis suggests that the public’s perception of morally legitimate drone warfare can vary based on why and how strikes are used, and that this reflects unique combinations of moral norms.