Sarah Maxey
Biographic Data
| ID | 4380487 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Sarah Maxey |
| GIVEN NAMES | Sarah |
| FAMILY NAME | Maxey |
| SIGNATURE | MAXEY S |
| AFFILIATIONS | Loyola University Chicago |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-0047-0980 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 11 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 128 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 11 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2018 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2025 |
| H-INDEX | 5 |
Morally opposed? A theory of public attitudes and emerging military technologies
Military technology does not exist in a vacuum; it is mediated by difficult choices about development and use. Public attitudes influence these choices, but emerging technologies present a challenge: assessing public opinion without a clear picture of the technology's use. Focusing on autonomous weapon systems, we argue that attitude stability depends on moral conviction and concern with inherent characteristics or outcomes. Combining these dimen…
Good Enough? Public Perceptions of Success in Military Interventions
Public perceptions of successful military interventions carry high stakes for democratic governance. Expectations of success help mobilize support for military action, while political punishment for failure deters elected leaders from starting wars they cannot win. What factors drive public perceptions of success? How susceptible are public perceptions of success to elite manipulation? Treating perceptions of success as a dependent variable in th…
Public Beliefs about the Role of Military Force
Synthesizing public opinion data and existing scholarship, this essay traces four legacies in U.S. public opinion left by two decades of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, short-term boosts in public support and deference to executive authority at the beginning of each war created a permissive environment for institutional changes not easily reversed. Second, growing public skepticism toward these wars did not undermine support for broader inte…
Documents and democracy: How classification shapes public confidence in democratic institutions
Access to and control over the classification process is a key component of executive power in the United States. This power is rooted in the public’s trust that the White House will safeguard national secrets and use its authority to protect national security. Secrecy, however, is in tension with democratic norms of transparency, making political backlash possible if leaders stretch their powers too far. What are the consequences of mishandled d…
Moralization and Foreign Policy Attitudes
Explaining Public Demands for Border Militarization
The militarization of border control is a defining feature of contemporary international politics. Why do states flock toward these policies despite their questionable efficacy? We theorize that border militarization stems in part from public reactions to the threat of international and domestic decline. We test this argument with two conjoint experiments that randomize the implementing agency, strategy, costs, and effectiveness of different poli…
You and Whose Army? How Civilian Leaders Leverage the Military’s Prestige to Shape Public Opinion
How does the military’s popularity influence leaders’ domestic leeway in foreign policy? We argue that leaders have strategic incentives to publicly leverage military prestige because doing so builds support and deflects blame for decisions regarding military force. Rather than shifting power toward the military, these references primarily empower leaders. At the individual level, a survey experiment varies the identity of presidential advisors a…
Finding the water’s edge: When negative partisanship influences foreign policy attitudes
Limited Spin: When the Public Punishes Leaders Who Lie about Military Action
Presidents have significant incentives to mislead the public about the use of force. Under what conditions are members of the public willing to hold presidents accountable for what they say about military action? This article examines both spin and deceit at the micro-level to clarify when individuals are most likely to punish presidents for misinformation. Three survey experiments demonstrate that presidents incur political costs for misinformat…
The Power of Humanitarian Narratives: A Domestic Coalition Theory of Justifications for Military Action
Conventional wisdom assumes the best way to mobilize public support for military action is through the lens of national security. Humanitarian justifications provide a helpful substitute when US interests are not at stake, but are less reliable. However, US presidents have provided humanitarian explanations for every military intervention of the post-Cold War period. What, if any, power do humanitarian justifications have in security-driven inter…
Mechanisms of Morality: Sources of Support for Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian interventions (HIs) are a common aspect of US foreign policy. Policy makers acknowledge the importance of public support for interventions, but scholars remain divided about the extent and basis of that support. Using a series of survey experiments, we evaluate attitudes about HIs, assess whether the public supports these interventions for instrumental or moral reasons, and test which aspects of morality are most salient. The finding…
Mechanisms of Morality: Sources of Support for Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian interventions (HIs) are a common aspect of US foreign policy. Policy makers acknowledge the importance of public support for interventions, but scholars remain divided about the extent and basis of that support. Using a series of survey experiments, we evaluate attitudes about HIs, assess whether the public supports these interventions for instrumental or moral reasons, and test which aspects of morality are most salient. The finding…
The Power of Humanitarian Narratives: A Domestic Coalition Theory of Justifications for Military Action
Conventional wisdom assumes the best way to mobilize public support for military action is through the lens of national security. Humanitarian justifications provide a helpful substitute when US interests are not at stake, but are less reliable. However, US presidents have provided humanitarian explanations for every military intervention of the post-Cold War period. What, if any, power do humanitarian justifications have in security-driven inter…
You and Whose Army? How Civilian Leaders Leverage the Military’s Prestige to Shape Public Opinion
How does the military’s popularity influence leaders’ domestic leeway in foreign policy? We argue that leaders have strategic incentives to publicly leverage military prestige because doing so builds support and deflects blame for decisions regarding military force. Rather than shifting power toward the military, these references primarily empower leaders. At the individual level, a survey experiment varies the identity of presidential advisors a…
Limited Spin: When the Public Punishes Leaders Who Lie about Military Action
Presidents have significant incentives to mislead the public about the use of force. Under what conditions are members of the public willing to hold presidents accountable for what they say about military action? This article examines both spin and deceit at the micro-level to clarify when individuals are most likely to punish presidents for misinformation. Three survey experiments demonstrate that presidents incur political costs for misinformat…
Finding the water’s edge: When negative partisanship influences foreign policy attitudes
Good Enough? Public Perceptions of Success in Military Interventions
Public perceptions of successful military interventions carry high stakes for democratic governance. Expectations of success help mobilize support for military action, while political punishment for failure deters elected leaders from starting wars they cannot win. What factors drive public perceptions of success? How susceptible are public perceptions of success to elite manipulation? Treating perceptions of success as a dependent variable in th…
Explaining Public Demands for Border Militarization
The militarization of border control is a defining feature of contemporary international politics. Why do states flock toward these policies despite their questionable efficacy? We theorize that border militarization stems in part from public reactions to the threat of international and domestic decline. We test this argument with two conjoint experiments that randomize the implementing agency, strategy, costs, and effectiveness of different poli…
Mechanisms of Morality: Sources of Support for Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian interventions (HIs) are a common aspect of US foreign policy. Policy makers acknowledge the importance of public support for interventions, but scholars remain divided about the extent and basis of that support. Using a series of survey experiments, we evaluate attitudes about HIs, assess whether the public supports these interventions for instrumental or moral reasons, and test which aspects of morality are most salient. The finding…
The Power of Humanitarian Narratives: A Domestic Coalition Theory of Justifications for Military Action
Conventional wisdom assumes the best way to mobilize public support for military action is through the lens of national security. Humanitarian justifications provide a helpful substitute when US interests are not at stake, but are less reliable. However, US presidents have provided humanitarian explanations for every military intervention of the post-Cold War period. What, if any, power do humanitarian justifications have in security-driven inter…
Finding the water’s edge: When negative partisanship influences foreign policy attitudes
Limited Spin: When the Public Punishes Leaders Who Lie about Military Action
Presidents have significant incentives to mislead the public about the use of force. Under what conditions are members of the public willing to hold presidents accountable for what they say about military action? This article examines both spin and deceit at the micro-level to clarify when individuals are most likely to punish presidents for misinformation. Three survey experiments demonstrate that presidents incur political costs for misinformat…
You and Whose Army? How Civilian Leaders Leverage the Military’s Prestige to Shape Public Opinion
How does the military’s popularity influence leaders’ domestic leeway in foreign policy? We argue that leaders have strategic incentives to publicly leverage military prestige because doing so builds support and deflects blame for decisions regarding military force. Rather than shifting power toward the military, these references primarily empower leaders. At the individual level, a survey experiment varies the identity of presidential advisors a…
Explaining Public Demands for Border Militarization
The militarization of border control is a defining feature of contemporary international politics. Why do states flock toward these policies despite their questionable efficacy? We theorize that border militarization stems in part from public reactions to the threat of international and domestic decline. We test this argument with two conjoint experiments that randomize the implementing agency, strategy, costs, and effectiveness of different poli…
Morally opposed? A theory of public attitudes and emerging military technologies
Military technology does not exist in a vacuum; it is mediated by difficult choices about development and use. Public attitudes influence these choices, but emerging technologies present a challenge: assessing public opinion without a clear picture of the technology's use. Focusing on autonomous weapon systems, we argue that attitude stability depends on moral conviction and concern with inherent characteristics or outcomes. Combining these dimen…
Good Enough? Public Perceptions of Success in Military Interventions
Public perceptions of successful military interventions carry high stakes for democratic governance. Expectations of success help mobilize support for military action, while political punishment for failure deters elected leaders from starting wars they cannot win. What factors drive public perceptions of success? How susceptible are public perceptions of success to elite manipulation? Treating perceptions of success as a dependent variable in th…
Public Beliefs about the Role of Military Force
Synthesizing public opinion data and existing scholarship, this essay traces four legacies in U.S. public opinion left by two decades of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, short-term boosts in public support and deference to executive authority at the beginning of each war created a permissive environment for institutional changes not easily reversed. Second, growing public skepticism toward these wars did not undermine support for broader inte…
Documents and democracy: How classification shapes public confidence in democratic institutions
Access to and control over the classification process is a key component of executive power in the United States. This power is rooted in the public’s trust that the White House will safeguard national secrets and use its authority to protect national security. Secrecy, however, is in tension with democratic norms of transparency, making political backlash possible if leaders stretch their powers too far. What are the consequences of mishandled d…
Moralization and Foreign Policy Attitudes
Political science (10 works) · Law (8 works) · Law (8 works) · Psychology (7 works) · International Relations and Foreign Policy (6 works) · Politics (6 works) · Economics (5 works) · Electoral Systems and Political Participation (5 works) · Public relations (5 works) · Social Psychology (5 works)