Cyberattacks, Psychological Distress, and Military Escalation: An Internal Meta-Analysis

Abstract

To what extent can cyberattacks wreak havoc and terrorize modern society? Until now, this question has revolved around the potential of cyber operations to cause physical destruction or other material harm. In this paper, we propose a broader interpretation. We submit that assessing cyber-threats through the prism of physical destruction has obscured the human dimension of the threat. Instead, we propose calculating the gravity of cyberattacks by measuring psychological distress. This approach recognizes that even seemingly inconsequential cyberattacks can levy tremendous damage by traumatizing civilians, undermining societal cohesion, and exacerbating cycles of violence. To test whether cyberattacks cause significant individual harm, we employ an internal meta-analysis looking at eighteen studies conducted in three countries over 6 years. Across these studies, we exposed 6,020 respondents to simulated cyberattacks and conventional attacks. We conclude that cyberattacks can cause high levels of psychological harm—equal even to that caused by conventional political violence and terrorism. This finding overturns a widely accepted view that cyberattacks are a mere irritant at best and a threat to information security at worst. Through this lens, the findings suggest that even nonphysically destructive cyberattacks can trigger consequences that constitute a legally defined armed attack that permits using armed force in self-defense. We conclude by discussing how the onset of psychological distress generates political pressure in support of retaliation and can lead to military escalation.

Who spies on whom? Unravelling the puzzle of state-sponsored cyber economic espionage

“…My exploration of the dynamics involved in the strategic targeting of state-sponsored cyber economic espionage offers a valuable springboard into exploring the psychological and societal impacts of cyber-attacks. For instance, Shandler, Gross & Canetti (2023) underscore the significant psychological distress caused by cyber-attacks, equating it to the impact of conventional political violence. The linkage between the tactical espionage activities discussed in this article and the psychological fallout explored by Shandler, Gross & Canetti (2023) opens an avenue for contemplating the ethical and humanitarian considerations of cyber espionage.…”

“…For instance, Shandler, Gross & Canetti (2023) underscore the significant psychological distress caused by cyber-attacks, equating it to the impact of conventional political violence. The linkage between the tactical espionage activities discussed in this article and the psychological fallout explored by Shandler, Gross & Canetti (2023) opens an avenue for contemplating the ethical and humanitarian considerations of cyber espionage.…”

Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism

“…Insofar as cyberterrorism is just a methodological subset of terrorism, the public may search for characteristics it associates with conventional terrorism. Yet while cyberterrorism is unquestionably related, research has shown that it is substantively different from conventional terrorism in its practice and effects ( Backhaus et al 2020 ; Shandler, Snider, and Canetti 2022 ; Shandler and Gomez 2022 ; Shandler et al, 2023 ). We therefore hypothesize that there will be several distinguishing predictive features that are unique to cyberterrorism.…”

If it bleeps it leads? Media coverage on cyber conflict and misperception

“…These findings may explain why, although catastrophic attacks have not happened, most United States citizens still perceive cyberattacks to be the greatest national security threat, even above nuclear weapons (Vise ´, 2023). Consequently, even if cyber-attacks themselves remain low in intensity, public threat perception may still increase the risk of escalation by pressuring governments to retaliate (Jardine and Shandler, 2024;Shandler et al, 2022Shandler et al, , 2023. Moreover, how cyber-attacks are perceived can shape public opinion concerning security policy, such as attitudes towards surveillance (Arsenault et al, forthcoming).…”