Stephen J. Ceccoli

Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the European Union

This article examines the factors that condition citizens’ attitudes toward genetically modified (GM) foods by considering individual-level attitudes in 15 European Union member states. Previous research has shown that European attitudes toward GM foods are influenced by overall levels of scientific literacy, consumer exposure to media coverage, and broader socio-political preferences. This article seeks to expand on this literature by testing some of these explanations in a multivariate analysis. To test our propositions, we develop and estimate a logistic regression model using data derived from Eurobarometer surveys. While the sources of information that people value and their attitudes toward EU policy in related areas explain to some extent support for GM foods, our strongest finding confirms the importance of public understanding of science as a basis for support for this emerging technology.

The Sources of Pakistani Attitudes toward Religiously Motivated Terrorism

This study is interested in understanding public opinion in Pakistan toward terror attacks. Specifically, this study explores (1) the general picture of attitudes in Pakistan toward terrorism and (2) which individuals are most likely to support terrorism in Pakistan. The study aims to give insights into how pervasive a support base exists for terrorism as a tactic in Pakistan and it seeks to isolate the individual-level traits that account for the variation we see among Pakistani Muslims regarding their level of acceptance of terrorism against Pakistani and Indian targets. The study finds that a large majority of Pakistanis oppose terrorism but terrorism directed at Indian targets is more tolerated than terrorism against Pakistani targets. The study also finds that those who are most supportive of Talibanization in Pakistan are the most supportive of terrorism.

Explaining patterns of support for the provision of citizen welfare

This study seeks to explain individual-level variation in attitudes toward the responsibility of welfare provision. We seek to understand the microfoundations of support or opposition to the governments role in welfare provision in Europe. While other studies have explored the role that economic or political attitudes have on support for the governments role in welfare provision, this is the first study to assess the relative role that individual psychology, particularly risk acceptance, can play in shaping a citizens attitude toward welfare provision. We argue that an individuals psychological predisposition will play an important role in shaping how s/he thinks about the provision of welfare. The study takes its data from seven European countries: Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. We find that economic self-interest (particularly, social class status, income, and education) is a consistent predictor of ones view of who should be responsible for providing for citizen welfare. In addition to the traditional economic and political explanations, we find support for a psychological explanation, specifically that individuals who are more risk acceptant are more likely to prefer that individuals play a greater role in welfare provision.

Media coverage of drug approvals

Abstract This research examines how newly approved drugs are presented in newspapers, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) press releases, and websites. It finds that the print media coverage is more positive than FDA press releases and lacks basic information that would be important to consumers. The shortcomings of traditional media appear to be mitigated by the varied sources of information about prescription drugs available on the Internet.

Explaining Divergent Attitudes Toward Lethal Drone Strikes

Although lethal drone strikes have become a central component of the U.S. campaign against international terrorism, the program remains a low salience issue with considerable bi-partisan consensus and a supportive U.S. general public. This article explains American attitudes toward lethal drone strikes by testing arguments based on partisanship and ideology, core values and abstract beliefs, and elite cues. Results suggest that respondent core values and governmental cues offer important insights. Consequently, the political environment under certain conditions may not frame important issues in such a way that the general public is likely to gain a knowledgeable understanding of the alternatives.

Taking your medicine? Attitudes toward direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA)

Highlights ► Important divides exist when predicting individual level patterns of support for DTCA. ► The shared decision making model can help explain consumer support for increased DTCA. ► Searching for health information on the Internet, education, and ethnicity are strong predictors of support for DTCA. ► DTCA support is increased by select characteristics generally associated with weaker health outcomes. ► Patterns of support for increased DTCA are not necessarily uniform across important segments of the population. Abstract The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (1997) reinterpretation of existing regulatory guidelines facilitated a substantial increase in direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription medicines. Consumer attitudes toward this regulatory phenomenon and their political implications have been understudied by social scientists. This study develops and tests several individual-level explanations, and shows that there are no simple explanations for understanding support for DTCA, including a tempting appeal to what a person thinks about the doctor–patient relationship. We use an ordered probit analysis to find that searching for health information on the internet, education, and ethnicity are strong and consistent predictors of support for DTCA. As patterns of support for DTCA vary across important segments of the population, we find that DTCA support is increased by select characteristics generally associated with weaker outcomes from the American health system.

Diffusion and policy transfer in armed UAV proliferation: the cases of Italy and Germany

ABSTRACT In a 2015 policy change, the U.S. State Department released guidelines governing the sale of armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to other countries, and several export agreements were signed shortly later. While considerable scholarly effort has been devoted to the impact or consequences of UAV proliferation, few studies have analyzed the actual diffusion process. This article applies the insights from both diffusion theory and policy transfer to examine the various diffusion mechanisms while using the experiences from Italy and Germany to illustrate distinct cases policy convergence and divergence, respectively. While the competition mechanism is typically constrained to policy adopting jurisdictions, evidence on armed UAV diffusion suggests policy transfer decisions can also hinge on competition among exporting jurisdictions. Consequently, we seek to point attention to the interaction between diffusion mechanisms (such as competition) and various domestic conditions, demonstrating that diffusion is neither apolitical nor necessarily neutral in character.

Taking the lead? Transatlantic attitudes towards lethal drone strikes

While opinion polls indicate majorities of Americans support the use of lethal drone strikes for counterterrorism purposes, European publics generally are much less supportive. This article develops and tests several individual-level explanations for such attitudes among survey respondents in the United States and seven European countries, including six European ‘drone club’ member states. Evidence suggests that ideology and core policy beliefs shape respondent sentiment in clear and convincing ways. Moreover, preferences for the closeness of the European-American security partnership and the relevance of NATO indicate the importance of a shared transatlantic identity as additional determinants.

Explaining individual level support for organ procurement policy

Abstract The demand for human organs for transplantation – both from live and deceased donors – has become a public health issue in the United States, as thousands of Americans die each year due to the lack of a needed transplant. The current policy basis for organ procurement is voluntarism as federal organ procurement policy, based on the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), prohibits the exchange of human organs for “valuable consideration.” While an increasing number of policy analysts, including some ethicists, have advocated for financial incentives to induce more donations, a variety of factors – such as the legislative status quo, ongoing ethical concerns, and uncertain public support – have resulted in little use of financial incentives. We argue that a better understanding of public opinion is an important prerequisite for any move toward the use of financial incentives. Consequently, we develop and test a model to explain individual level attitudes toward legalizing and regulating the sale of human organs for transplant. We find that political ideology, gender, age and geographic region are important predictors of support.