Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch 63: 705–728, 2024 705
doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12617
Deon ological and consequen ialis p e e ences owa ds a ms expo s: A
compa a i e conjoin expe imen in F ance and Ge many
LUKAS RUDOLPH,1MARKUS FREITAG2& PAUL W. THURNER3
1Depa men o Poli ics and Public Adminis a ion, Uni e si y o Kons anz, Ge many; 2Independen Resea che ,
Munich, Ge many; 3Geschwis e Scholl Ins i u e o Poli ical Science, LMU Munich, Ge many
Abs ac . Despi e ie ce poli iciza ion in a ms-expo ing democ acies, we lack sys ema ic esea ch on mass
public p e e ences on a ms ans e s. We p opose ha ci izens ei he apply a deon ologis ( ejec ing ans e s
ca ego ically) o consequen ialis ( ading-o economic, s a egic and no ma i e aspec s) calculus o p e e ence
o ma ion. Conduc ing popula ion- ep esen a i e su ey expe imen s (N=6617) in Ge many and F ance, wo
global op- i e majo a ms expo e s, we ind ha 10–15 pe cen o esponden s ollow deon ologis conside a ions,
a p e e ence s uc u e po en ially ele an o all o eign policies in ol ing he use o mili a y o ce. S ill, a majo i y
shows di e en ia ed p e e ences, gi ing la ges weigh o no ma i e conside a ions, wi h assessmen s a ec ed by
mode a ing ea u es (e.g., scena ios o jus wa ). P incipled ejec ion o a ms ade and a la ge consequen ialis
weigh o no ma i e ac o s a e mo e p onounced in Ge many compa ed o F ance, indica ing ha public opinion
migh pose a s onge cons ain o go e nmen policy in his coun y. Responden s’ p e e ences ma ch opinion
polls on pos -Russian in asion Uk aine a mamen , indica ing high ex e nal alidi y o ou expe imen s.
Keywo ds: deon ologis e hics; o eign policy; in e na ional ade; public opinion su ey expe imen ; weapon
expo s
In oduc ion
When coun ies expo a ms, hey deli e a e y peculia good: Economically, a ms ade nou ishes
a sizable indus y wi h a global u no e o $361 billion o he 25 la ges companies alone.1
Wi h espec o secu i y, a ms ans e s a ec bo h he global balance o powe bu also he
speci ic secu i y en i onmen o expo ing and impo ing s a es (Ga cía-Alonso & Le ine, 2007).
No ma i ely, a ms a e a coe ci e echnology wi h he po en ial o kill, employed o ‘jus wa s’
as well as o agg ession o supp ession (Bellamy, 2006). No ably, eigh o he 10 la ges
expo ing coun ies a e democ acies (Wezeman e al., 2020), bu , o ou knowledge, esea ch on
he ins i u ional and p e e en ial p econdi ions o democ a ic accoun abili y o his policy a ea
is lacking.
The hea ed public deba es in NATO coun ies su ounding weapons ans e s o Uk aine be o e
and a e he Russian in asion in 2022 p o ide a case in poin . In a p ominen example, he Ge man
go e nmen i s opposed such expo s ca ego ically bu u ned i s posi ion d as ically a e he
in asion.2A he same ime, public opinion lipped – om abou wo- hi ds opposed o wo-
hi ds app o ing he ans e s o e en o ensi e weapons (see Online Appendix sec ion A.1).3
As Uk ainian p esiden Wolodymy Selenskyj pu i : ‘I gladly no ice ha he posi ion o Ge many
mo es a ou ably owa ds Uk aine. And I hink his is absolu ely logical, gi en he majo i y o he
Ge man popula ion suppo s his mo e’ (daily ideo add ess on 10 Ap il 2022, own ansla ion).
Hence, we p opose ha i is bo h heo e ically wo hwhile and p ac ically ele an o unde s and
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License, which pe mi s use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium,
p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
Kons anze Online-Publika ions-Sys em (KOPS)
URL: h p://nbn- esol ing.de/u n:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-2jkpyx23qn n5
706 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
public opinion on a ms ans e s. We he eby ie in o an ongoing deba e in he ecen li e a u e,
indica ing ha ci izens hold easoned p e e ences on o eign policy and ha hei a i udes ma e
o go e nmen decision-making (see Online Appendix sec ion A.2).
Wi h his a icle, we add ess h ee co e ques ions: To wha ex en does opposi ion ‘pe se’
p e ail in mass public p e e ences ega ding a ms expo s? How do ci izens weigh s a egic,
economic and no ma i e ac o s when deciding on a ms expo s? Do hese conside a ions a y in
wo majo Wes e n a ms-expo ing democ acies, Ge many and F ance? Theo e ically, we p opose
ha we need o di e en ia e wo undamen al ypes o p e e ence o ma ion o ci izens. Fi s , o
some, p e e ences could be de e mined by undamen al con ic ions. Wi h so-called deon ological
mo i a ions (Chen & Schonge , 2022), ci izens do no eason unde which condi ions,bu whe he
a all a ms should be aded. Empi ical in es iga ions o he p esence o deon ological p e e ences
a e gene ally a e, bu e en mo e so in he ield o o eign policy p e e ence o ma ion (see o
excep ions Dill & Schubige , 2021; Nincic & Ramos, 2011). To ou knowledge, only esea ch
on a nuclea aboo has sys ema ically in es iga ed whe he p incipled objec ion s uc u es ci izen
p e e ences, wi h some e idence poin ing agains (e.g., Dill e al., 2022; P ess e al., 2013) and
o he e idence owa ds (e.g., Ra hbun & S ein, 2020) p incipled p e e ences. We in es iga e
whe he deon ologis mo i a ions a e impo an o a ms ade as a p ominen policy decision
ha di ec ly ela es o he use o mili a y o ce, and whe e p incipled a gumen s a e equen ly
pu o wa d in public discou se. Second, o o he ci izens, much like go e nmen s, a ms ade
could cons i u e a mul i-dimensional policy objec ha combines economic, geo-s a egic and
no ma i e aspec s, as poli ical economy heo ies a gue (Ga cía-Alonso & Le ine, 2007). These
ci izens would apply a consequen ialis mode o decision-making, bu we do now know how hey
econcile po en ial ade-o s be ween hese h ee dimensions in hei calculus. O cou se, he
p e alence and mani es a ion o hese wo ypes o p e e ence o ma ion could di e be ween
coun ies, cons aining go e nmen s o di e ing deg ees. We he e o e explici ly in es iga e
ci izens’ p e e ences in wo di e gen cases wi h dis inc his o ies and ins i u ions, Ge many and
F ance – bo h global op- i e expo e s o a ms, bu he la e a nuclea powe wi h high geopoli ical
ambi ions, he o me wi h a pos u e o a ‘ci il powe ’.4
Empi ically, we d aw on a popula ion- ep esen a i e online su ey wi h 6617 ( o ing-age)
ci izens, hal om each coun y, gi ing us su icien powe o in es iga e e en complex condi ional
ela ionships. We iangula e om esponden s’ eplies o expe imen al a ing asks, open-ended
su ey ques ions, and es ablished su ey scales o iden i y deon ologis esponden s. Conjoin
choice expe imen s allow us o iden i y nuanced ade-o s be ween economic, s a egic and
no ma i e aspec s o a ms ans e s. Ou heo e ical a gumen , empi ical analysis and sample size
calcula ion ollow an ex ensi e p e- egis a ion (see Online Appendix B).
Ou esul s imply ha a ound 10–15 pe cen o esponden s oice p incipled opposi ion o
a ms ade e en unde he mos a ou able con ex condi ions. A majo i y s ongly condi ions
hei suppo on he economic, s a egic and no ma i e cha ac e is ics o an a ms ans e , wi h he
la e bea ing he s onges ela i e weigh . No ably, ce ain a ibu e con igu a ions mode a e hese
ela i e weigh s. Fo example, de ensi e wa s a enua e conce ns o ade wi h s a es in con lic .
In e na ional supply compe i ion alle ia es no ma i e conce ns and enhances he ele ance o he
economic and s a egic dimensions. Compa ing F ench and Ge man esponden s, we show ha
he gene al calculus is simila o bo h popula ions, while Ge man esponden s a e mo e likely o
exp ess p incipled opposi ion and gi e la ge weigh o un a ou able no ma i e con ex s in gene al.
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
DEONTOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST PREFERENCES TOWARDS ARMS EXPORTS 707
We hence con ibu e a public opinion pe spec i e o an o he wise s a e- and eli e- ocused
li e a u e (e.g., Kinne, 2016; Thu ne e al., 2019). We iden i y how di e en a gumen s on a ms
ade in eli e-le el poli ical discou se e lec in he dis ibu ion o ci izen p e e ences and he
weigh s assigned o he a gumen s. Theo e ically (Ga cía-Alonso & Le ine, 2007) and anecdo ally,
we would, o example, expec ha deon ologis p e e ences a e unlikely a he go e nmen le el5
and ha he weigh s ha ci izens a ach o he economic, geo-s a egic and economic dimensions
o a ms ade di e om ha o go e nmen s.6
Mo e b oadly, ou insigh s ela e o a g owing li e a u e in es iga ing he e ogenei y in he
p e e ence o ma ion p ocesses o ci izens. On he one hand, ou esul s indica e ha deon ologis
p e e ences could be an o e looked aspec o public opinion on o eign policy making, a
leas whene e deadly o ce is in ques ion. On he o he hand, ou a gumen s and esul s a e
associa ed wi h ecen indings in ela ed a eas whe e (domes ic) economic bene i s, secu i y and
no ma i e conside a ions in e ac (albei o a ying deg ees) – o example, decisions on mili a y
in e en ions (Dill & Schubige , 2021; Tomz & Weeks, 2020), p o ision o o eign aid (Hein ich
e al., 2018), in e na ional ade (Lechne , 2016) o o eign di ec in es men (Rudolph, Kolca a,
e al., 2023).
In he nex sec ion, we delinea e a heo y o how a ms ans e p e e ences o ci izens a e
o med and how hey migh di e in wo majo Eu opean expo e s. Then, we desc ibe ou
empi ical design including da a collec ion and da a analysis. The Conclusion sec ion ou lines he
esul s ega ding ou majo esea ch ques ions. Finally, we conclude he a icle by highligh ing
especially i s policy ele ance.
Ci izen’s decision-making on a ms expo s
Poli ical economy models o s a e-le el decision-making on a ms expo s explain decision-making
p ima ily on ins umen al g ounds, ha is, hey ocus on he economic and geo-s a egic aspec s
o a ade (Ga cía-Alonso & Le ine, 2007; Le ine e al., 1994). No ma i e aspec s o a weapons
ade, in pa icula , legal p inciples (e.g., he UN A ms T ade T ea y, he EU Council Decision
(CFSP) 2019/1560, he Ge man Wa Weapons Con ol Ac ), can addi ionally cons ain expo s,
o example, o con lic zones o au ho i a ian egimes. How such legal p inciples come in o being
is no explained by hese models hemsel es, and, usually, he ele ance o no ma i e aspec s is
concei ed as only indi ec ly a ec ing he go e nmen calculus ( ia geo-s a egic in e es , e.g.,
as a ms ade can uel in e nal con lic (see Pamp e al., 2018), which migh lead o po e y,
e o ism o mig a ion lows) (Le ine e al., 1994). A he go e nmen le el, his iad o aspec s
en ails complex ade-o s, whe e economically bene icial deals may be de imen al o a coun y’s
s a egic objec i es (e.g., when ading wi h un eliable pa ne s) jus as no ma i e conce ns may
s and in he way o economically/s a egically bene icial deals (e.g., when ading wi h human
igh s iola ing egimes).
Bu how do ci izens assess he ade o a ms? Recen schola ship has anscended he iew ha
ci izens’ decision-making is shaped exclusi ely by ma e ialis conside a ions and has consequen ly
expanded he ounda ions on which p e e ences o m. This e ol ing li e a u e shows, o example,
ha no ma i e easoning can shape public suppo o sanc ions o e en wa (Onde co, 2017;
Tomz & Weeks, 2020); ha he public ca es abou human igh s iola ions in o he coun ies,
sac i icing domes ic economic bene i s o punish human igh s iola o s (Allendoe e , 2017);
and ha ci izens ake in o accoun non-economic ac o s in ade p e e ence o ma ion (Kolca a
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
708 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
e al., 2021; Rudolph, Quoß, e al., 2023). Howe e , hese indings a e mos ly mo i a ed by a
consequen ialis calculus, whe e ci izens o m p e e ences o e policies based on he e ec s hey
ha e. Bu ci izens migh also o m p e e ences ega dless o hei consequences, ha is, based on
deon ological mo i a ions (Alexande & Moo e, 2021). While bo h mo i a ions migh lead o he
same obse ed p e e ence in any conc e e case, hei na u e is e y di e en – as e iden in he
con as be ween Webe ian Gesinnungse hik and Ve an wo ungse hik as he espec i e basis o
poli ical beha iou (Webe , 1926). Hence, we aim o disen angle in he i s s ep he p e alence
o deon ologis om consequen ialis easoning; only hen can we, in he second s ep, heo ize on
he conc e e ade-o s ha any ac ual a ms ade migh ha e, would i (no ) be conduc ed; and
de elop, in he hi d s ep, a gumen s abou po en ial di e ences by coun y con ex s.
Deon ological mo i a ions
Take an exempla y ade ha subs an i ely aises he domes ic economy, suppo s a s a egic
pa ne coun y and goes o a peace abiding, o e en an agg essi ely a acked s a e. I he poli ical
economy li e a u e has i s assump ions igh , and geo-s a egic, economic and no ma i e conce ns
a e he co e de e minan s o u ili y unc ions, go e nmen s, jus as well as ci izens, should app o e
such a ade. I espec i e o whe he hei easoning ocuses on economic, no ma i e o s a egic
a gumen s, his ade should be maximizing hei u ili y.
Bu ci izens (and poli icians) may be undamen ally opposed o any a ms ans e o p incipled
easons, iewing any ans e o weapons as an uncondi ional bad.7Fo example, adical paci is
iews would all in his ca ego y (Cady, 2010). Radical paci is s would see any iolence as
inapp op ia e, ha is, as an immo al mean, i espec i e o he ends his mean is o suppo . As any
ade o a ms would enable such iolence, i is ejec ed. Such mo i a ions a e he mos plausible
sou ce o p incipled opposi ion in ou case: in (Eu opean) poli ical discou se, hey a e p ominen ly
oiced by ci il socie y o ganiza ions connec ed o he peace mo emen and paci is ad oca es (e.g.,
Holden, 2017).
Impo an ly, paci ism is no he only possible ounda ion o p incipled opposi ion (e.g.,
isola ionis s migh simila ly ejec any ans e ) and he g ounds on which p incipled opposi ion is
based likely di e by coun y con ex s. Ra hbun and S ein (2020) make he compelling a gumen
ha mo ali y and egoism should no be con la ed wi h deon ological and consequen ialis decision-
making – ei he mode o decision-making can be based on mo al easoning. Bu we a gue ha
i is impo an o know abou he size o p incipled p e e ences, as such ci izens pu s onge
cons ain s on go e nmen s. Consequen ialis s suppo he ans e o a ms unde speci ic con ex
condi ions – which changes he na u e o he game o one o policy design (e.g., Bech el e al.,
2017) and pe suasion (e.g., Gada ian, 2010) o b idge po en ial gaps be ween eli e and popula ion
p e e ences (Sme ana & Onde co, 2022). A ele an sha e o deon ologis s, howe e , dec eases
he manoeu abili y o go e nmen s (Zhang, 2019). Addi ionally, we p opose ha deon ologis
ci izens a e likely o a ach highe impo ance o pa y posi ions in his a ea and a e hence mo e
likely o hold poli ical pa ies o accoun o hei policy (Ge be e al., 2011).
So a , he p e alence o undamen al con ic ions has a ely been in oked o explain he
s uc u e o ci izens’ o eign policy p e e ences.8As a i s goal o his a icle, we will he e o e
iden i y he ex en o which opposi ion ‘pe se’ p e ails in mass public p e e ences ega ding
a ms ans e s. On he agg ega e le el, he sha e o ci izens ha ollow such p e e ences could
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
DEONTOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST PREFERENCES TOWARDS ARMS EXPORTS 709
hus be indica i e o challenges o an ins umen ally o ien ed go e nmen s a egy o easons o
democ a ic accoun abili y.
Economic, s a egic and no ma i e dimensions o a ms ades and hei weigh in a
consequen ialis calculus
Ci izens ha ollow a consequen ialis calculus a ach indi idually a ying weigh s o he likely
consequences o weapon deals o he sending and ecei ing coun y. We, he e o e, assess, as a
second goal o his a icle, he ela i e weigh o h ee co e dimensions (see also Dill & Schubige ,
2021), economic, s a egic and no ma i e consequences o an a ms ade.
I ci izens gi e la ge weigh o he economic dimension, he wel a e consequences o a ms
expo s (job ma ke /income consequences) should s ongly de e mine public p e e ences. As he
immedia e wel a e consequences o an a ms ade a e eadily obse able and ha e di ec posi i e
consequences o he domes ic economy, economic a ibu es o a ms ades p o ide easy- o- ollow
guidance when o ming decisions. We p opose ha u ili y maximiza ion should en ail a s ic
inc ease o app o al o a ms ans e s wi h inc easing economic bene i s, all else equal.
I ci izens gi e la ge weigh o geo-s a egic in e es s, hey should ake in o accoun he po en ial
secu i y implica ions o an a ms deal. Jus as in a go e nmen ’s op imiza ion p oblem, a ms deals
can be conside ed ha m ul o bene icial o a coun y’s long- e m secu i y en i onmen , depending
on whe he a ade suppo s allies o ad e sa ies (Ga cía-Alonso & Le ine, 2007). As hese
secu i y implica ions a e no easily obse able, ci izens and e en poli ical eli es ha e o ollow cues
p o ided by a ibu es o he ecei ing coun y. Fi s and o emos , ade wi h geo-s a egic pa ne s
should be conside ed bene icial, as his ade comes abou wi h posi i e secu i y ex e nali ies o
he sending coun y. I ci izens gi e la ge weigh o his dimension, we should obse e highe
suppo o ade wi h such geo-s a egic pa ne s.
Las , i ci izens gi e la ge weigh o he no ma i e dimension, we p opose ha he consequences
o an a ms ade o he ecei ing coun y a e a he cen e s age o conside a ions.9These
no ma i e conside a ions a e s ee ed by legal conside a ions and mo al dilemmas. Con a y o
p incipled opposi ion, he likely e ec s o weapons ades a e conside ed. On he basis o
hypo he ical impe a i es, ci izens would o m p e e ences o e a ms ades based on hei e ec s
(Chen & Schonge , 2022). Ci izens would di e en ia e whe he a ms will likely be used o ep ess
a popula ion (compa ed o upholding a law ul s a e monopoly o powe ) o whe he a ms a e
employed o igh ul de ensi e o unlaw ul o ensi e pu poses (Bellamy, 2006). Theo ies o
jus wa (Cady, 2010) would a gue ha he use o iolence, and he eby a ms ade, may be
mo ally accep able o e en equi ed i i se es igh ul ends – h ee a ibu es o ecei ing
coun ies a e easily obse able o ci izens and in o ma i e in his espec : he ecei ing coun y’s
egime cha ac e is ic, especially i i is a democ acy; i s human igh s si ua ion; and whe he
i is cu en ly engaged in iolen con lic . A ms expo s should all unde igh ul ends i hey
suppo democ a ic and human igh s upholding egimes (as an indica ion ha a ms a e used
o ensu e a law ul s a e monopoly o powe a he han o opp ess) and should be app o ed
whe e hey suppo jus i ied iolence, pa icula ly de ence agains e o is s, ebels o o eign s a e
agg ession.
We will apply a esea ch design ha o ces ci izens o o m decisions ha e eal ade-o s
be ween hese h ee dimensions. Psychological li e a u e poin s o he ease o a i ude accessibili y
(K osnick, 1989) o explain which aspec s guide decision-making: ques ions o wa and peace,
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.

710 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
human igh s iola ions, o au oc a ic leade ship all ela e o undamen al p inciples o social
li e and a e bo h easy o unde s and and impo an o many ci izens. Hence, he no ma i e
dimension ela es o ne wo ks o equen ly accessed a i udes in memo y; also, such ques ions
o wa and peace o human igh s di ec ly ela e o emo ions, which a e pa icula ly accessible
(Rocklage & Fazio, 2018). High a i ude accessibili y, in u n, would explain a la ge weigh
o his no ma i e dimension in decision-making. This could also come abou as he s a egic
aspec s o an a ms ade a e no easily obse able o ci izens, and as he economic aspec s
a e de ached om he day- o-day li e o ci izens (leading o low ego opic mo i a ions) – and
e en i socio opic mo i a ions we e s ong (bu see Scha e & Spilke , 2019), hese socio opic
mo i a ions a e likely discoun ed due o he low absolu e sha e he a ms indus y holds in Wes e n
economies.10
Howe e , we also expec ha he weigh o economic, s a egic, and no ma i e aspec s is
in luenced by he p esence o absence o mode a o s, ha is, he ele ance o hese dimensions
can be ac i a ed by speci ic a ibu e con igu a ions. This ela es o he ques ion o how s able he
decision calculus o ci izens is, and whe he he weigh o he h ee dimensions a ies by con ex
condi ions. Conc e ely, we in es iga e how i e aspec s a ec he ela i e weigh o no ma i e,
economic and geo-s a egic a ibu es: i s , he in luence o in e na ional supply compe i ion
o e ma ke sha es, which is a s ong de e minan o non-Pa e o-e icien ou comes in poli ical
economy models (Ga cía-Alonso & Le ine, 2007); second, economic in e es s as a media o o
he ele ance o no ma i e a gumen s, as p oposed in he o eign aid li e a u e (e.g., Hein ich e al.,
2018); hi d, wa s o igh ul egimes as a use o o ce mo e likely o be legi ima e compa ed o
wa s o opp essi e egimes; ou h, highe cau ion in ade app o al when he mili a y equipmen
o be aded is mo e le hal (Cady, 2010); and i h, whe he expo s o geo-s a egic pa ne s ind
highe app o al when hese a e democ acies (who likely a e mo e eliable) (Johns & Da ies,
2012). In sum, his will in o m on he one hand o wha ex en he basic ci izen calculus di e s
om s anda d poli ical economy models di ec ed owa ds s a egic aspec s and he economy,
by p ominen ly inco po a ing now a no ma i e dimension. On he o he hand, he ques ion on
mode a o s will be indica i e o he eac i i y o public opinion wi h espec o a ms ans e s
gi en pa icula nuanced side cons ain s o decision-making.
Ge man–F ench di e ences
As a hi d goal o ou a icle, we in es iga e o wha ex en bo h deon ologis mo i a ions and
he consequen ialis calculus di e be ween coun y con ex s. Fo his, we d aw on Ge many
and F ance as di e gen cases, wi h an an i-mili a is and es ained o eign policy cul u e in
pos -wa Ge many ollowing he expe ience o Wo ld Wa II (End es, 2018, 51 .), and wi h
F ench poli ical cul u e s i ing o in e na ional ‘ ang’ ( ank) and ‘g andeu ’ (g ea ness) (see,
e.g., K o z, 2015, 68 .), whe e he mili a y, he use o mili a y o ce as well as he na ional
a ms p oduc ion ha e high legi imacy (K o z, 2015, 114 .). We expec ha Ge man ci izens
show ela i ely less suppo o weapons deals on a e age, a e mo e likely o exhibi deon ologis
p e e ences and eac mo e s ongly o no m- ela ed dimensions. This would p o ide a case in
poin ha public opinion cons ains go e nmen s’ a ms ade beha iou o a di e ing ex en based
on deep socie al p e e ences.
Figu e 1 p o ides a summa y o he expec a ions ou lined so a .
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
DEONTOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST PREFERENCES TOWARDS ARMS EXPORTS 711
Figu e 1. Summa y o heo e ical expec a ions. +(−−) indica es he expec ed posi i e (s ong nega i e) ela ion
be ween he exp ession o a decision a ibu e on a ci izen’s app o al o an a ms ade. [Colou igu e can be iewed
a wileyonlinelib a y.com]
Resea ch design
The ollowing sec ion p esen s ou esea ch design. Online Appendix B discusses di e ences o
he p e-analysis plan.
Da a and su ey design
D awing on a popula ion- ep esen a i e quo a sample o 6617 esponden s om Ge many (N=
3250) and F ance (N=3367) ( ield ime Oc obe 2020–Janua y 2021) wi h Kan a ’s op -in online
panel, we ielded s anda d su ey ques ions as well as conjoin and igne e su ey expe imen s.
We se quo as on age, educa ion, gende and egion.11 Ou p ocedu e and he su ey ins umen
we e app o ed by he E hics Commission o he Social Science Facul y o LMU Munich. Online
Appendix sec ion A.3.1 de ails how we adhe ed o co e P inciples o Human Subjec s Resea ch.
Figu e 2 p esen s he su ey low. Responden s s a ed wi h s anda d su ey ques ions on socio-
demog aphics and poli ical a i udes, be o e en e ing he co e o ou esea ch design, he conjoin
expe imen . Fo his, we in oduced esponden s o a scena io in which hey we e o assess wo
hypo he ical a ms ans e s (p o iles), aking ca e o a oid any posi i e o nega i e aming e ec s
when in oducing he opic. Two p o iles we e p esen ed in a abula o ma , side-by-side, di e ing
along nine heo e ically chosen a ibu es wi h wo o i e uni o mly andomized a ibu e le els
(de ails on a ibu es and le els in he nex subsec ion). Responden s hen aced six choice and
a ing asks (see Online Appendix Figu e A.2 o an example). We use he a ing ask o ou
i s objec i e – assuming ha deon ologis esponden s a e e en he mos a ou able p o ile
lowly and p o ide low a ings h oughou all 12 a ing asks. We use he choice ask o ou
second objec i e – o iden i y he weigh s and ade-o s o a consequen ialis calculus. We hence
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
712 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
Figu e 2. Su ey low. P esen ed a e ques ion blocks used o he analyses in his a icle. Fo de ails, see he p e-
egis e ed su ey ins umen . [Colou igu e can be iewed a wileyonlinelib a y.com]
wo k wi h N·6·2=79,404 obse a ions on he p o ile le el. Ex ensi e p e- egis e ed powe
simula ions (Schuessle & F ei ag, 2020) mo i a ed his sample size.
As low a ings could also be d i en by consequen ialis ejec ion, ha is, esponden s no seeing
wha hey pe sonally would deem a a ou able con ex beyond ou choice o a ibu es and a ibu e
alues, o jus by andom noise, we iangula e deon ologis mo i a ions wi h addi ional su ey
i ems. The key o his is, i s , an expe imen al igne e (Mu z, 2011) ocusing on he ade-
o be ween la ge/small economic gains and a human igh s abiding democ acy e sus a human
igh s iola ing au oc acy in a 2 ×2 design. Responden s had o explain hei mo i a ion o
(dis)ag eemen wi h a leas wo sen ences in a ex box. Responden s had o en e ex o p oceed
wi h he su ey. We used esponden s ha ejec ed a ‘ a ou able’ igne e (democ acy/high
alue) and aced whe he hey oice deon ologis mo i a ions in hei open-ended jus i ica ions.
Second, we use eplies o a s anda d su ey i em ba e y on gene al a i udes owa ds a ms
ans e s, expec ing deon ologis s o pe cei e a ms ade as ‘mo ally bad’, ‘no pe missible’ e en
unde a ou able condi ions and ‘ o be es ic ed’ in p inciple. Online Appendix sec ion A.4
p o ides de ails. Thi d, we expec deon ologis s o ha e di icul ies in he choice ask – hence,
we in es iga e whe he hei choices a e a enua ed owa ds ze o in he conjoin expe imen (see
below). O e all, we p opose ha his iangula ion p o ides a sensible app oxima ion o a ha d- o-
measu e subg oup.
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
DEONTOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST PREFERENCES TOWARDS ARMS EXPORTS 713
In a inal expe imen al ques ion, we also in es iga e he impo ance o a ms ans e s o
esponden s’ o ing beha iou wi h a spli -su ey expe imen , o assess ou expec a ions ha
he posi ion o poli ical pa ies on a ms ade is mo e impo an o deon ologis esponden s.
Ou su ey also con ained se e al s anda d su ey i ems on p e e ences owa ds wa and peace
(Bizumic e al., 2013).
As speeding and sa is icing a e well-known issues in online su eys, he su ey company
excluded esponden s as e han 40 pe cen o he median su ey ime du ing da a collec ion.12
Fu he p oblema ic cases (especially s aigh -line s and supe -speede s in s anda d i em ba e ies
o supe -speede s in all conjoin asks) we e also excluded.13
Se -up o he conjoin expe imen s
To ope a ionalize he ade-o s ha consequen ialis esponden s ace, we selec ed nine a ibu es
(summa ized in Table 1). These a ibu es mimic ypical aspec s p esen in public discou se; hence,
he in o ma ion is ac ually a ailable o ci izens. This also implies ha economic consequences a e
a he conc e e (mone a y alue/employmen bene i s), while no ma i e/s a egic implica ions a e
a he abs ac and p oxied by a ge coun y cha ac e is ics. Conce ning a ibu e le els, we ocus
on he ange o obse able alues o hese a ibu es o p esen esponden s wi h ealis ic ade-o s
and o speak o ac ual a ms ade policy.
De ails a e p esen ed in Online Appendix sec ion A.5. In sho , we ansla e he economic
dimension in o h ee aspec s: g oss wel a e added ( ange: obse ed expo s in 2019); employmen
consequences (negligible o 5000, a medium-sized i m); expo s o an impo an ade pa ne
(yes/no). We ansla e he s a egic dimension o a ms ading o nega i e/posi i e secu i y
ex e nali ies, which link o alliance s a us. We cap u e his by a secu i y pa ne ship be ween
selle / a ge (yes/no). Conce ning he no ma i e dimension, global egula o y commi men s
highligh egime ype (democ a ic s. non-democ a ic), human igh s si ua ion ((no) (s ong)
iola ion o human igh s) and con lic s a us o he a ge coun y ( i e common ypes). We p esen
wo mo e a ibu es as po en ial mode a ing ac o s: he p oduc o be aded (de ensi e equipmen
o la ge-scale weapons), which also p e en s esponden s om in e ing weapon ype and i s ha m
po en ial om he mone a y alue o he deal; and in e na ional compe i ion (‘unknown’ s. allies
s. i als ading). We explici ly s ay silen on he coun y ha is o be aded wi h, o a oid
un ealis ic p o iles and idiosync a ic coun y pe cep ions a ec ing p e e ence o ma ion.
A ibu es a e p esen ed in block- andom o andom o de , cons an wi hin esponden
(Rudolph e al., 2022). Online Appendix sec ion A.6 p o ides de ails on ou es ima ion s a egy,
which d aws mainly on a e age ma ginal componen e ec s (AMCEs) (Hainmuelle e al., 2014).
This allows us o ocus on ma ginal shi s in o e all public opinion wi h changes in a ibu e le els.
We also es ima e ma ginal means (MMs) and a e age componen e ec s (ACPs) as sugges ed by
ecen me hodological esea ch (Gan e , 2023; Leepe e al., 2020).
Resul s
Deon ologis mo i a ions
We s a wi h an indica ion o baseline p e e ences on a ms deals. To his end, we u n o
he a e age a ings o esponden s in he conjoin expe imen . O e all packages, suppo on he
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
720 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
o a ms ans e s o un a ou able con ex s becomes mo e likely. While au oc a ic egime ype
is assessed simila ly nega i e in bo h scena ios, mode a e (p=0.083) and se e e human igh s
iola ions a e mo e likely accep ed (p=0.014), as is in a-s a e (p=0.081) and agg essi e in e -
s a e wa (p=0.006). Again, e ec s a e absolu ely small bu meaning ul in ela i e e ms: we see a
educ ion o he penal y o human igh s iola ions o a ound 14 pe cen and he penal y o in e -
o in a-s a e wa o a ound 22 pe cen . Conce ning he ques ion o whe he posi i e economic
consequences o a ms deals dampen he ele ance o ad e se no ma i e con ex s, we do no ind
any e idence (see Online Appendix Figu e A.8): AMCEs di e only ma ginally, and wa si ua ions
(compa ed o peace) a e e en mo e de imen al o choice wi h high economic alue. Conce ning he
ques ion o whe he ade wi h igh ul egimes (de ined as human igh s upholding democ acies)
in wa is mo e likely o be suppo ed compa ed o ade wi h opp essi e egimes in wa , we ind
suppo . As al eady discussed abo e, ade o wa con ex s see a much highe choice p obabili y
i hey a e de ensi e compa ed o o ensi e, wi h a subs an ial di e ence in choice p obabili ies o
a ound 15 pe cen age poin s. As well, when weapons likely suppo a igh ul s a e monopoly o
powe (see panel C o Figu e 6), de ensi e wa con ex s (p=0.018) and a ge coun ies in con lic
wi h e o is s (p=0.072) no longe ecei e a meaning ul penal y, while he penal y o ci il wa
con ex s dec eases (p=0.020) by 38 pe cen . No ably, we obse e no change in p e e ences o
agg essi e in e -s a e wa s compa ing igh ul and un igh ul egimes. Las , as can be seen om
Online Appendix Figu e A.9, esponden s become mo e cau ious o app o e ade wi h coun ies
in con lic when he mili a y equipmen o be aded is mo e le hal. Al oge he , his indica es ha
ci izens’ decision-making along he no ma i e dimension is in luenced by conside a ions o jus
wa heo y, ha is, igh cause, igh au ho i y and p opo iona e esponse (Cady, 2010). Finally,
we in es iga e an implica ion o democ a ic peace heo y: indeed (see panel D o Figu e 6), ade
wi h s a egic pa ne s exhibi s highe choice p obabili ies (22 pe cen o main e ec ), when hese
pa ne s a e democ acies (p=0.086).
In summa izing hese indings, we conclude ha ele an mode a ions o decision a ibu es
appea and ha (besides no e idence o economically bene icial con ex s alle ia ing no ma i e
conce ns) he weigh o he economic, s a egic and no ma i e dimensions can be ac i a ed by
con ex ual ac o s. This highligh s ha , e en i he no ma i e dimension seems o d i e p e e ence
o ma ion on agg ega e, ci izens show a e y nuanced calculus conce ning a ms ade.
Ge man–F ench di e ences and policy ele ance
Las ly, we assess whe he Ge man and F ench esponden s show di e en p e e ence s uc u es
and discuss why his migh be ele an o he decision-making o go e nmen s. To s a
wi h, esponden s om Ge many and F ance show nuances in hei a e age esponse o he
conjoin expe imen . Figu e 7 p esen s MMs by coun y o he choice ask (see Online
Appendix Figu e A.11 o AMCEs). This e eals i s o all ha he gene al pa e n o p e e ences
is simila in bo h coun ies. Second, howe e , Ge man esponden s ake se e e human igh s
si ua ions mo e s ongly in o accoun , ha e a s onge p e e ence o peace ul con ex s (and a e
less suppo i e o ‘wa s on e o ’), eac weake o he mone a y alue o he deal (al hough
sligh ly s onge o employmen bene i s), ha e a s onge dis as e o la ge weapons and eac
mo e s ongly o NATO compa ed o F ench co-deli e ies. O e all, Ge man esponden s, he e o e,
show, on a e age, a mo e sensi i e eac ion o cha ac e is ics o he a ge coun y and he na u e
o he deal (i.e., o ‘good’ s. ‘bad’ deals o he ecipien popula ion) and less eac ion o
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.

DEONTOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST PREFERENCES TOWARDS ARMS EXPORTS 721
Figu e 7. Ma ginal means by coun y and coun y di e ence o all a ibu es.
economic co-bene i s. This goes hand in hand wi h an, on a e age, mo e scep ical a ing o a ms
deals in Ge many compa ed o F ance (see Online Appendix Figu e A.10). Fo all displayed
p o iles, Ge man esponden s assess a ms ades wi h a mean o 3.05 and median o 3 (i.e.,
ejec ion), F ench esponden s wi h a mean o 3.40 and median o 4 (i.e., en a i e accep ance).
Co espondingly, 29 pe cen (21 pe cen ) o displayed a ms ades a e i idly ejec ed by Ge man
(F ench) esponden s ( a ing o 1), and 59 pe cen (49 pe cen ) see a clea ejec ion wi h a a ing
below he scale mid-poin in Ge many (F ance).
Why does his ma e ? As we a gue, he Ge man public seemingly has a di e en s uc u e
o disapp o al, making i di icul o ind common g ounds o a ms expo s on F ench e ms. To
p o ide an indica ion o his, we in es iga e he dis ibu ion o a ings o a ms ade p o iles
c ossing o e a a ou able e sus un a ou able go e nance and con lic con ex and a high e sus
a low economic alue o a ade. As indica ed by Online Appendix Figu e A.12 (uppe ou
plo s), he sha e o esponden s ha a e undamen ally opposed o an a ms ade ( a ing o 1)
is subs an ially highe in Ge many when he ade goes o an un a ou able go e nance and con lic
con ex : 20 pe cen age poin s highe wi h low economic alue, and 7 pe cen age poin s highe wi h
high economic alue. Simila ly, e en a ms ade o good go e nance con ex s a high economic
alues see undamen al opposi ion om a ound 23 pe cen o Ge man, bu only 13 pe cen om
F ench esponden s. Hence, while median suppo o a ms ade aligns in bo h coun ies wi h
a good go e nance and con lic con ex (a 4), i di e s subs an i ely when he go e nance and
con lic si ua ion is bad (by one scale poin , 2 in Ge many s. 3 in F ance). Thus, opposi ion o
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
722 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
bad go e nance and con lic con ex s is much mo e p onounced in Ge many. This consequen ly
e lec s in he p edic ed a ings o speci ic ealis ic a ms ade scena ios, whe e F ance and
Ge many migh ha e o coo dina e go e nmen policy. As displayed in Online Appendix Table
A.5, wi h un a ou able go e nance and con lic si ua ions p edic ed suppo is subs an i ely lowe
in Ge many compa ed o F ance: a ound 0.7 a ing poin s wi h a low- alue ans e (example o
Aze baijan) o a ound 0.6 a ing poin s wi h a high- alue ans e (example o Saudi A abia).
Suppo is only compa able once he go e nance and con lic si ua ion is posi i e (see examples o
Cos a Rica and F ance/Ge many). Hence, public opinion cons ains he menu o accep able a ms
ades mo e s ongly in Ge many compa ed o F ance.
Also, he sha e o deon ologis esponden s is subs an i ely la ge in Ge many (14–16 pe cen )
compa ed o F ance (7–10 pe cen ) (see he esul s p esen ed in he Deon ologis mo i a ions
sec ion). This is an addi ional po en ially ele an cons ain o he Ge man compa ed o he F ench
go e nmen . We p oposed in he heo y sec ion ha p incipled opposi ion should e lec mo e
s ongly in ci izens’ poli ical decision-making. To es his empi ically, we p o ide supplemen a y
analyses in Online Appendix Table A.6. We asked esponden s abou he impo ance o pa y
posi ions on a ms ade o hei elec ion decision, expe imen ally a ying whe he hey eply o
he elec o al impo ance o he posi ion o hei (on o he g ounds) p e e ed pa y e sus any
o he pa y. Responden s ha e alua e hei p e e ed pa y unsu p isingly a ach subs an i ely and
signi ican ly highe issue impo ance (a ound 0.5 poin s on a i e-poin scale). Con as ing eplies
o his ques ion by deon ologis e sus consequen ialis esponden s, we ind ha deon ologis s
a ach e en mo e impo ance o a ms ade in decision-making (by abou 0.2 scale poin s), wi h
an addi ional p emium i he ques ion conce ns hei p e e ed pa y on o he g ounds (by abou
0.5 scale poin s). This indica es ha deon ologis s cons ain go e nmen manoeu abili y no only
because o i m policy iews bu also because hey a e mo e likely o hold pa ies o accoun o
policy di e ging om hei p e e ences in p ac ice. O cou se, we can expec hese cons ain s
o a y by he pa isan composi ion o go e nmen s and he espec i e sha e o deon ologis s
among hese pa ies’ suppo e s (see Online Appendix sec ion A.7.6 o en a i e e idence ha
deon ologis p e e ence s uc u es a e mo e p e alen among esponden s wi h a a -le o g een
pa y o e in en ion).
All in all, we conclude ha Ge man esponden s a e mo e ca ing o he no ma i e con ex
in a ge coun ies, eac less posi i ely o i s economic bene i s and ha a la ge sha e o
Ge man esponden s is in undamen al opposi ion compa ed o F ench esponden s. Responden s
in p incipled opposi ion a ach highe impo ance o he policy issue, which implies likely s onge
cons ain s o he Ge man go e nmen o e all. In a Ge man–F ench coope a ion in he ealm o
de ence, he Ge man popula ion could, hence, p o e o be a bo leneck and coope a ion migh only
be possible on Ge man e ms – i F ance is willing o accep hese.
Conclusion
I he equen ly implo ed Eu opean de ence and secu i y policy should e e ealize, high up on
he EU agenda a e he Russian in asion o Uk aine in 2022,17 F ance and Ge many a e ‘bound o
lead’ (Nye, 1990) oge he . This implies ha no only he espec i e EU membe s a es’ eli es bu
also hei public suppo such s a egic alliances and ag ee on a common denomina o wi h espec
o secu i y policy, including a ms expo s. The s uggle o ind common g ound conce ning a ms
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
DEONTOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST PREFERENCES TOWARDS ARMS EXPORTS 723
ans e s o Uk aine among EU and NATO coun ies bo h be o e and a e he Russian in asion in
2022, accompanied by hea ed public deba es, p o ides a case in poin o he challenges his en ails.
In his a icle, we explo ed his common g ound om a public opinion pe spec i e, ocusing on
he Ge man and F ench public. So a , li le o no hing is known abou mass public p e e ences
o a ms expo s. Expe imen al s udies on a i udes owa ds his o eign policy issue do ( o
ou knowledge) no exis o hese wo coun ies, no any o he coun y wo ldwide. Using
conjoin and igne e expe imen s, we in es iga ed he ex en o p incipled opposi ion o any a ms
ade, and he weigh o h ee co e dimensions, no ma i e, economic and s a egic aspec s, o
ci izens’ opinion o ma ion. Responden s in bo h coun ies gi e la ges weigh o he no ma i e
implica ions o a ms expo s, while also aking he economic and s a egic aspec s o a deal in o
accoun . Also, esponden s eac in nuanced ways o side cons ain s ha can u he expo s (e.g.,
when suppo ing de ensi e wa s o ading in a compe i i e en i onmen ), e en i a majo i y o
esponden s is a he scep ical. Howe e , a la ge sha e o esponden s is in undamen al opposi ion
owa ds a ms expo s in Ge many and expo s o au oc a ic, human igh s abusi e o con lic -p one
con ex s ind s onge opposi ion in Ge many compa ed o F ance. Hence, we ind some signs
o a c oss-coun y di e gence in a e age p e e ences be ween he publics. O e all, he Ge man
go e nmen is likely cons ained o a la ge ex en by i s public and join ac ion seems easible
a he on Ge man han F ench e ms.
These indings ha e clea policy ele ance: he speci ic ci cums ances o an a ms ans e can
induce subs an ial swings in public suppo . Fo example, ou expe imen indica es ( en a i e)
app o al a ings o abou 65 pe cen o esponden s, and opposi ion o abou 35 pe cen o
esponden s in a pos -in asion Uk aine- ype si ua ion (see Figu e 3), co esponding closely o
wha we see in eal-wo ld public opinion polls on he ma e (see Online Appendix sec ion A.1).
While ( en a i e) app o al o ade in such ‘posi i e’ scena ios is simila ly high in bo h F ance and
Ge many, suppo in Ge many (bu no in F ance) d ops s ongly i condi ions a e less ‘posi i e’
(e.g., compa ing a p e-in asion Uk aine scena io, whe e he coun y is a ci il wa ). We ake
his as an indica ion ha ou expe imen , ielded in a pe iod o peace in Eu ope in la e 2020, is
doing well in iden i ying a p e e ence s uc u e ele an also o ex eme scena ios, and hence has
high ex e nal alidi y. Consequen ly, Online Appendix A.7.2 p esen s u he illus a ions o he
bounds o suppo based on p edic ed a ings, con as ing packages ha co espond o conc e e
coun y examples. They indica e ha a a ou able con ex in he no ma i e as well as s a egic and
economic ealms seems o need o come oge he o public accep ance o an a ms ade on a e age.
Al oge he , he uppe bound o suppo o a ms ans e s appea s o be a he low in gene al and
e en lowe in Ge many compa ed o F ance. A he same ime, ou indings a e bo h in line wi h
he asse ion o di e en s a egic cul u es in Ge many and F ance (End es, 2018; I ondelle e al.,
2015), and wi h he anecdo al e idence o a s ong public backlash agains mo ally epulsi e, e en
i economically and s a egically bene icial, a ms deals. Based on he c oss-coun y di e ences we
obse e, i seems plausible ha he socie al ‘s a egic cul u es’ o Ge many and F ance di e o an
ex en ha in any coope a ion he coun ies a e cons ained by hei espec i e publics o a lowes
common denomina o in a ms expo policy (Pu nam, 1988) – which he e is he es ic i e Ge man
app oach o he ade o a ms. These esul s also hold lessons o he easibili y o an EU-wide
a ms expo con ol policy and can con ibu e o explaining why hese a e ‘in c isis’ (Wiso zki
& Mu schle , 2021). As a ms expo s a e jus one ace o a join Eu opean secu i y and de ence
policy, ou esul s highligh b oade challenges o policy design in his ega d: a a - eaching
uni ied Eu opean de ence policy seems challenging in he nea u u e.
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
724 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
Wi h espec o heo y, ou indings ie o a la ge ecen li e a u e ha poin s o he ele ance
o deeply oo ed alues and belie s leading o well-s uc u ed o eign policy p e e ences (Ke ze
e al., 2014; Ke ze & Zei zo , 2017). While in ou case hese seem o be p ima ily cen ed
a ound he o eign coun ies’ no ma i e con ex , subs an ial subse s o he popula ion also a ibu e
weigh o a a he s a egic and/o economic calculus (Bech el e al., 2019). E en mo e, we
also ace a segmen o he popula ion exhibi ing deon ological p e e ences (su p isingly la ge
wi h a ound 10–15 pe cen o esponden s, wi h subs an ial a ia ion be ween coun ies), which
seemingly clus e s in speci ic pa ies ( a he on he poli ical le ) and is seemingly mo e a en i e
o o ing along i s p inciples. This mode o decision-making has la gely been o e looked in he
li e a u e bu is heo e ically in iguing: i leads o a wedge be ween wha heo y le s us expec o
go e nmen s’ a ms ade decision-making (a consequen ialis calculus ocused on economic and
secu i y implica ions (Ga cía-Alonso & Le ine, 2007) and ci izen p e e ences (consequen ialis s
pu ing s onges weigh on he o eign coun ies’ no ma i e con ex ; ci izens in undamen al
opposi ion ejec ing any expo ing-s a egy h oughou ). Gi en i s likely ounda ion pa icula ly in
paci is mo i a ions in ou case, his wedge migh be ele an beyond a ms expo s, o all policies
in ol ing ques ions o wa and peace.
We see se e al impo an a enues o u u e esea ch: i s o all, u u e esea ch could ex end
o o he coun y con ex s, pa icula ly he Uni ed S a es and he Uni ed Kingdom as impo an
democ a ic expo e s. Second, u u e esea ch should compa e whe he he s ong no ma i e
ounda ion o a ms ade policies is indeed peculia o he domain o expo s in mili a y goods,
o whe he esponden s would despise any ade (so also in non-mili a y, and pa icula ly eli e
consump ion goods) wi h dic a o ships and human igh s iola o s o a simila ex en . Thi d, u u e
esea ch could explo e mo i a ions o deon ologis p e e ences.18 Las bu no leas , ou esea ch
ocuses on he undamen al p e e ences o he public is-à- is he expo o weapons. Bu ou
supplemen a y analysis indica es ha p incipled opposi ion o a ms expo s di ec ly ela es o he
issue being impo an o o ing. In u u e esea ch, i would be wo hwhile o in es iga e o wha
ex en he issue a ec s ac ual poli ical beha iou , o example, o ing decisions, and o wha ex en
hese p e e ences can be poli icized, o example, when pa ies a e campaigning o o agains a -
anging policy decisions such as Eu opean in eg a ion in he de ence and secu i y domain. In o he
o eign policy a eas, he li e a u e has al eady es ablished ha he public is bo h a igilan obse e
o o eign policy (e.g., Ke ze & Zei zo , 2017) and ha i s p e e ences ma e o o eign policy-
making (e.g., Goldsmi h & Ho iuchi, 2012) – o example, o ade policy (e.g., Dü & Ma eo,
2014) o mili a y o ce (e.g., Tomz e al., 2020).
Acknowledgemen s
Thomas Be naue , Nicole Bolleye , Tim Bü he, And eas Dü , Vally Koubi, Gio gio Male , Lau a
Seelkop , Susumu Shikano, Kei h Smi h, Jan Vogle , Da id Wey auch, colleagues in esea ch
semina s a LMU Munich, ETH Zu ich and he Uni e si y o Kons anz, and pa icipan s o he
2021 Annual Con e ence o he Eu opean Poli ical Science Associa ion and he 2022 Mee ing
o he In e na ional Poli ical Economy Sec ions o he Ge man, Aus ian and Swiss Poli ical
Science Associa ions p o ided aluable eedback. We acknowledge inancial suppo by G an
No. FP 02/20 - PS 03/11-2019 o he Deu sche S i ung F iedens o schung. The s udy was p e-
egis e ed, and he p e-analysis plan is a ailable a h ps://doi.o g/10.17605/os .io/FZK52, he
su ey ins umen a h ps://doi.o g/10.17605/os .io/RJ89E. The su ey was app o ed by he E hics
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
DEONTOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST PREFERENCES TOWARDS ARMS EXPORTS 725
Commission o he Social Science Facul y o LMU Munich (GZ 20-01). Da a and eplica ion code
a e a ailable a h ps://doi.o g/10.7910/DVN/C6PTYD and in supplemen S2.
Open access unding enabled and o ganized by P ojek DEAL.
Con lic o In e es
The au ho s decla e no con lic o in e es .
Online Appendix
Addi ional suppo ing in o ma ion may be ound in he Online Appendix sec ion a he end o he
a icle:
Figu e A.1: Polls on a ms expo s in Ge many and F ance a ound he Russian in asion o Uk aine
in ea ly 2022.
Figu e A.2: Su ey sc een wi h exempla y display o conjoin expe imen (Ge man e sion).
Table A.1: Realised quo as and a ge quo as (sou ce: Des a is/INSEE).
Table A.2: Realised egional quo as and a ge quo as (sou ce: Des a is/INSEE).
Table A.3: Addi ional esponden cha ac e is ics.
Table A.4: Examples o s a emen s om open ex box on mo i a ions o ejec ion o a high- alue
a ms ans e o a human igh s abiding democ a ic coun y con ex .
Figu e A.3: Responses o gene al a i udes owa ds wa o ejec o s in conjoin .
Table A.5: P edic ed a e age suppo o speci ic a ms ans e s ( a ing ou come).
Figu e A.4: Ma ginal means o all a ibu es.
Figu e A.5: AMCEs o he a ing ou come.
Figu e A.6: ACPs (Gan e 2023) o he o ced-choice ou come and o all a ibu es.
Figu e A.7: CAMCEs and di e ences in CAMCEs by deon ologis s. consequen ialis
esponden s.
Figu e A.8: In e ac ion o economic alue wi h no m ela ed a ibu es.
Figu e A.9: In e ac ion o weapon ype wi h no m and economic ela ed a ibu es.
Figu e A.10: MMs by coun y and coun y di e ence o all a ibu es ( a ing ou come).
Figu e A.11: AMCEs by coun y and coun y di e ence o all a ibu es (choice ou come).
Figu e A.12: Dis ibu ion o a ings o e di e en a ms ade p o iles by coun y.
Table A.6: Issue impo ance o a ms ade o elec ion decision.
Table A.7: Ge many: ejec o s and pa y suppo .
Table A.8: F ance: ejec o s and pa y suppo .
Da a S1
No es
1. See h ps://www.sip i.o g/media/p ess- elease/2020/global-a ms-indus y-sales- op-25-companies-85-cen -
big-playe s-ac i e-global-sou h.
2. As in his case, many a ms deli e ies a e no pu ely comme cial sales bu p o ided subsidized as mili a y aid.
This is encompassed when we speak o a ms expo s in he ollowing, and we use he e ms a ms/weapons
expo / ans e / ade in e changeably.
3. While he e is, o ou knowledge, no scien i ic li e a u e on a ms ade p e e ences, polling agencies, as
con ac o s o NGOs, media ou le s o go e nmen agencies, a imes collec ci izens’ p e e ences on speci ic
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.

726 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
a ms expo s o in o m cu en poli ical deba es. Ea ly 2022, jus be o e/a e he Russian in asion o Uk aine,
was such a ime, and we iden i ied all polls ha we e publicly accessible – hey indica e ha public opinion
is e y esponsi e o ex e nal e en s, as we see a s ong shi in app o al wi h he onse o he in asion, albei
om polls o di e en su ey companies wi h di e en ques ion wo ding/sampling me hodology.
4. We hus ollow a mos di e en sys ems design logic (wi hin Eu opean Union [EU]/NATO democ acies), ha
is, a mul i-me hod app oach wi h cases embedded in a quan i a i e design.
5. Some legisla i e pa ies appa en ly ollow deon ologis mo i a ions a ce ain imes. Bu anecdo ally,
al eady he p ospec o go e nmen al esponsibili y can seemingly lead such pa ies (e.g., he Ge man
G eens) o u n o a consequen ialis logic (h ps://www.deu schland unk.de/nach-wa enexpo -aeusse ungen-
habeck-und-die-g uenen-haben.720.de.h ml?d am:a icle_id=497859).
6. No ably, he poli ical economy li e a u e (e.g., Le ine e al., 1994) sees no ma i e aspec s as only indi ec ly
a ec ing he go e nmen calculus ( ia geo-s a egic in e es ).
7. P incipled suppo is a heo e ical possibili y bu unlikely o be ele an o a ms ade.
8. To ou knowledge, undamen al con ic ions ha e p ima ily been ela ed o he use o weapons o mass
des uc ion as p oposed by heo ies o a ‘nuclea aboo’. Fo example, Blai e al. (2022) show ha a sizable
sha e o he popula ion holds ‘ aboo-like’ p e e ences. S ill, P ess e al. (2013) p opose ha US ci izens
p ima ily ejec nuclea weapon use o consequen ialis , a he han p incipled mo i a ions, a p e e ence
s uc u e iden i ied o o he Wes e n coun ies as well (Dill e al., 2022). Ou side o his ield, a e applica ions
include he ques ion o ci ilian p o ec ion (e.g., Dill e al., 2022), wa on e o (e.g., Nincic & Ramos, 2011)
and suppo o wa (Dill & Schubige , 2021).
9. We a e awa e ha no ma i e easoning can also a ec he weigh o he abo e-men ioned a ibu es. Fo
example, high in-g oup solida i y could lead o a (mo ally ounded) p ecedence o economic a ibu es (Ra hbun
& S ein, 2020). Hence, we do no a gue ha a la ge weigh o economic o geo-s a egic aspec s implies
amo al decision-making.
10. Fo example, Ge man a ms expo s in 2018 amoun o 4.82 billion Eu o, wi h GDP a 3388.2 billion (0.14 pe
cen ) (see h ps://www.bmwi.de/Redak ion/DE/Publika ionen/Aussenwi scha / ues ungsexpo be ich -
2018.h ml).
11. Online Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2 display ealized and a ge quo as, A.3 non-quo a cha ac e is ics.
12. This h eshold was ag eed upon wi h he su ey company be o e ga he ing he da a.
13. N=514. This is unlikely o bias ou measu e o deon ologis p e e ences. Deon ologis s would no gene ally
supe -speed h ough he i s conjoin ask (wi h ins uc ions). Also, i em ba e ies a e pa ly e e se-coded;
hence, s aigh -line s canno hold consis en p e e ences.
14. Supplemen a y analysis indica es ha among hese 15 pe cen (18 pe cen in Ge many, 13 pe cen in F ance),
67 pe cen (76 pe cen in Ge many, 57 pe cen in F ance) ne e oice a a ing abo e 1 in any choice ask,
indica ing a lowe bound o deon ologis esponses a 10 pe cen (14 pe cen in Ge many, 7 pe cen in F ance)
wi h his app oach.
15. Fo co esponding MMs and ACPs, see Online Appendix Figu es A.4 and A.6.
16. Fo his, we calcula e a e age ma ginal componen in e ac ion e ec s (AMCIEs). Fo example, we in e ac he
AMCEs o a ibu es in he economic dimension by whe he he a ibu e on ‘Which o he coun ies ade?’ is
se o ‘unknown’ e sus any o he le el.
17. h ps://www.consilium.eu opa.eu/en/p ess/p ess- eleases/2022/03/21/a-s a egic-compass- o -a-s onge -eu-
secu i y-and-de ence-in- he-nex -decade/
18. While he open-ended su ey esponses indica e i s and o emos paci is easoning, undamen al ejec ion can
also be uelled by an i-mig a ion a i udes (exempla y esponse: ‘i gene ally ejec a ms deli e ies. i s deli e
weapons and hen ha e o ake in e ugees. no, no wi h me’.) o non-in e en ionism (exempla y esponse:
‘F ance has no business in e e ing in wha happens elsewhe e, he e a e a oo many hings o do a home’).
Re e ences
Alexande , L., & Moo e, M. (2021). Deon ological e hics. In E. N. Zal a (Ed.), The S an o d encyclopedia o
philosophy (Win e 2021 edi ion).h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/win2021/en ies/e hics-deon ological/
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
DEONTOLOGICAL AND CONSEQUENTIALIST PREFERENCES TOWARDS ARMS EXPORTS 727
Allendoe e , M. G. (2017). Who ca es abou human igh s? Public opinion abou human igh s o eign policy.
Jou nal o Human Righ s,16(4), 428–451.
Bansak, K. (2021). Es ima ing causal mode a ion e ec s wi h andomized ea men s and non- andomized
mode a o s. Jou nal o he Royal S a is ical Socie y Se ies A: S a is ics in Socie y,184(1), 65–86.
Bech el, M. M., Geno ese, F., & Sche e, K. F. (2019). In e es s, no ms and suppo o he p o ision o global public
goods: The case o clima e co-ope a ion. B i ish Jou nal o Poli ical Science,49(4), 1333–1355.
Bech el, M. M., Hainmuelle , J., & Ma gali , Y. (2017). Policy design and domes ic suppo o in e na ional
bailou s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch,56(4), 864–886.
Bellamy, A. J. (2006). Jus wa s: F om Cice o o I aq. Poli y P ess.
Bizumic, B., S ubage , R., Mellon, S., Linden, N.V., Iye , R. & Jones, B. M. (2013). On he (in)compa ibili y o
a i udes owa d peace and wa . Poli ical Psychology,34(5), 673693.
Blai , C. W., Chu, J. A., & Schwa z, J. A. (2022). The wo aces o opposi ion o chemical weapons: Since e e sus
insince e no m-holde s. Jou nal o Con lic Resolu ion,66(4–5), 677–703.
Cady, D. (2010). F om wa ism o paci ism: A mo al con inuum. Temple Uni e si y P ess.
Chen, D. L., & Schonge , M. (2022). Social p e e ences o sac ed alues? Theo y and e idence o deon ological
mo i a ions. Science Ad ances,8(19), eabb3925.
Dill, J., & Schubige , L. I. (2021). A i udes owa d he use o o ce: Ins umen al impe a i es, mo al p inciples, and
in e na ional law. Ame ican Jou nal o Poli ical Science,65(3), 612–633.
Dill, J., Sagan, S. D., & Valen ino, B. A. (2022). Ke les o Hawks: Public opinion on he nuclea aboo and
noncomba an immuni y in he Uni ed S a es, Uni ed Kingdom, F ance, and Is ael. Secu i y S udies,31(1),
1–31.
Dü , A., & Ma eo, G. (2014). Public opinion and in e es g oup in luence: How ci izen g oups de ailed he An i-
Coun e ei ing T ade Ag eemen . Jou nal o Eu opean Public Policy,21(8), 1199–1217.
End es, F. (2018). Ö en liche Meinung und s a egische Kul u en. Sp inge .
Gada ian, S. K. (2010). The poli ics o h ea : How e o ism news shapes o eign policy a i udes. The Jou nal o
Poli ics,72(2), 469–483.
Gan e , F. (2023). Iden i ica ion o p e e ences in o ced-choice conjoin expe imen s: Reassessing he quan i y o
in e es . Poli ical Analysis,31(1), 98–112.
Ga cía-Alonso, Ma ía D. C., & Le ine, P. (2007). A ms T ade and a ms aces: A s a egic analysis. In Handbook o
De ense Economics (Vol. 2, pp. 941–971). Else ie .
Ge be , A. S., Hube , G. A., Dohe y, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011). Ci izens’ policy con idence and elec o al
punishmen : A neglec ed dimension o elec o al accoun abili y. The Jou nal o Poli ics,73(4), 1206–1224.
Goldsmi h, B. E., & Ho iuchi, Y. (2012). In sea ch o so powe : Does o eign public opinion ma e o US o eign
policy? Wo ld Poli ics,64(3), 555–585.
Hainmuelle , J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamo o, T. (2014). Causal in e ence in conjoin analysis: Unde s anding
mul idimensional choices ia s a ed p e e ence expe imen s. Poli ical Analysis,22(1), 1–30.
Hein ich, T., Kobayashi, Y., & Long, L. (2018). Vo e s ge wha hey wan (when hey pay a en ion): Human igh s,
policy bene i s, and o eign aid. In e na ional S udies Qua e ly,62(1), 195–207.
Holden, P. (2017). Inde ensible: Se en my hs ha sus ain he global a ms ade. Bloomsbu y Publishing.
I ondelle, B., Mé and, F., & Foucaul , M. (2015). Public suppo o Eu opean de ence: Does s a egic cul u e
ma e ? Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch,54(2), 363–383.
Johns, R., & Da ies, G. A. M. (2012). Democ a ic peace o clash o ci iliza ions? Ta ge s a es and suppo o wa
in B i ain and he Uni ed S a es. Jou nal o Poli ics,74(4), 1038–1052.
Ke ze , J. D., Powe s, K. E., Ra hbun, B. C., & Iye , R. (2014). Mo al suppo : How mo al alues shape o eign
policy a i udes. The Jou nal o Poli ics,76(3), 825–840.
Ke ze , J. D., & Zei zo , T. (2017). A bo om-up heo y o public opinion abou o eign policy. Ame ican Jou nal
o Poli ical Science,61(3), 543–558.
Kinne, B. J. (2016). Ag eeing o a m: Bila e al weapons ag eemen s and he global a ms ade. Jou nal o Peace
Resea ch,53(3), 359–377.
Kolca a, D., Rudolph, L., & Be naue , T. (2021). Volun a y business ini ia i es can educe public p essu e o
egula ing i m beha iou ab oad. Jou nal o Eu opean Public Policy,28(4), 591–614.
K osnick, J. A. (1989). A i ude impo ance and a i ude accessibili y. Pe sonali y and Social Psychology Bulle in,
15(3), 297–308.
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.
728 LUKAS RUDOLPH, MARKUS FREITAG, & PAUL W. THURNER
K o z, U. (2015). His o y and o eign policy in F ance and Ge many. Macmillan.
Lechne , L. (2016). The domes ic ba le o e he design o non- ade issues in p e e en ial ade ag eemen s. Re iew
o In e na ional Poli ical Economy,23(5), 840–871.
Leepe , T. J., Hobol , S. B., & Tilley, J. (2020). Measu ing subg oup p e e ences in conjoin expe imen s. Poli ical
Analysis,28(2), 207–221.
Le ine, P., Sen, S., & Smi h, R. (1994). A model o he in e na ional a ms ma ke . De ence and Peace Economics,
5(1), 1–18.
Mu z, D. C. (2011). Popula ion-based su ey expe imen s. P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Nincic, M., & Ramos, J. (2011). To u e in he public mind. In e na ional S udies Pe spec i es,12(3), 231–249.
Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound o lead: The changing na u e o Ame ican powe . Basic Books.
Onde co, M. (2017). Public suppo o coe ci e diplomacy: Explo ing public opinion da a om en Eu opean
coun ies. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch,56(2), 401–418.
Pamp, O., Rudolph, L., Thu ne , P. W., Mehl e e , A., & P imus, S. (2018). The build-up o coe ci e capaci ies:
A ms impo s and he ou b eak o iolen in as a e con lic s. Jou nal o Peace Resea ch,55(4), 430–444.
P ess, D. G., Sagan, S. D., & Valen ino, B. A. (2013). A omic a e sion: Expe imen al e idence on aboos, adi ions,
and he non-use o nuclea weapons. Ame ican Poli ical Science Re iew,107(1), 188–206.
Pu nam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domes ic poli ics: The logic o wo-le el games. In e na ional O ganiza ion,
42(3), 427–460.
Ra hbun, B. C., & S ein, R. (2020). G ea e goods: Mo ali y and a i udes owa d he use o nuclea weapons.
Jou nal o Con lic Resolu ion,64(5), 787–816.
Rocklage, M. D., & Fazio, R. H. (2018). A i ude accessibili y as a unc ion o emo ionali y. Pe sonali y and Social
Psychology Bulle in,44(4), 508–520.
Rudolph, L., Kolca a, D., & Be naue , T. (2023). Public demand o ex a e i o ial en i onmen al and social public
goods p o ision. B i ish Jou nal o Poli ical Science,53(2), 516–535.
Rudolph, L., Quoß, F., Buchs, R., & Be naue , T. (2023). En i onmen al conce n leads o ade skep icism on he
poli ical le and igh . In e na ional S udies Qua e ly,66(5), sqac060.
Rudolph, L., F ei ag, M., & Thu ne , P. (2022). O de ing e ec s s. cogni i e bu den – How should we s uc u e
a ibu es in conjoin expe imen s. SocA Xi . h ps://www.doi.o g/10.31235/os .io/yq4g3
Scha e , L. M., & Spilke , G. (2019). Sel -in e es e sus socio opic conside a ions: An in o ma ion-based
pe spec i e o unde s anding indi iduals’ ade p e e ences. Re iew o In e na ional Poli ical Economy,26(6),
1266–1292.
Schuessle , J., & F ei ag, M. (2020). Powe analysis o conjoin expe imen s. SocA Xi . www.doi.o g/
10.31235/os .io/9yuhp
Sme ana, M., & Onde co, M. (2022). Eli e-public gaps in a i udes o nuclea weapons: New e idence om a su ey
o Ge man ci izens and pa liamen a ians. In e na ional S udies Qua e ly,66(2), sqac017.
Thu ne , P. W., Schmid, C. S., C anme , S. J., & Kaue mann, G. (2019). Ne wo k in e dependencies and he
e olu ion o he in e na ional a ms ade. Jou nal o Con lic Resolu ion,63(7), 1736–1764.
Tomz, M. R., Weeks, J. L. P., & Ya hi-Milo, K. (2020). Public opinion and decisions abou mili a y o ce in
democ acies. In e na ional O ganiza ion,74(1), 119–143.
Tomz, M. R. & Weeks, J. L. P. (2020). Human igh s and public suppo o wa . The Jou nal o Poli ics,82(1),
182–194.
Webe , M. (1926). Poli ik als Be u (Vol. 2). Duncke & Humblo .
Wezeman, P. d., Fleu an , A., Kuimo a, A., Da Sil a, D. L., Tian, N., & Wezeman, S. T. (2020). T ends
in in e na ional a ms ans e s, 2019. SIPRI Fac Shee . h ps://www.sip i.o g/si es/de aul / iles/2020-03/
s_2003_a _2019.pd
Wiso zki, S., & Mu schle , M. (2021). No common posi ion! Eu opean a ms expo con ol in c isis. Zei sch i ü
F iedens-und Kon lik o schung,10(2), 273–293.
Zhang, K. (2019). Encoun e ing dissimila iews in delibe a ion: Poli ical knowledge, a i ude s eng h, and opinion
change. Poli ical Psychology,40(2), 315–333.
Add ess o co espondence: Lukas Rudolph, Depa men o Poli ics and Public Adminis a ion, Uni e si y o
Kons anz, 78462 Kons anz, Ge many; Email: lukas. udolph@uni-kons anz.de
© 2023 The Au ho s. Eu opean Jou nal o Poli ical Resea ch published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o Eu opean Conso ium o Poli ical Resea ch.