ABSTRACT
Objectives: Ransomware attacks have become a critical security threat worldwide. However, existing research on ransomware has largely ignored public opinion. This initial study identifies patterns in the American public's support for the use of ransomware, specifically when it is framed to provide benefits to others (i.e., in-group members). Drawing on the Robin Hood decision-making literature and Moral Foundations Theory, we offer theoretical predictions regarding ransomware support. Methods: In a survey of 1013 Americans, we embedded a split-ballot experiment in which respondents were randomly assigned to indicate their level of support or opposition to one of two sets of six ransomware scenarios. We manipulated the nationality, authority level, and political affiliation of the actors. Results: We find that people are more supportive of ransomware use when the actors are from their own in-group, and the outcomes benefit their in-group members. Also, the more strongly participants endorsed the moral foundations of authority and harm/care, the more supportive they were of the use of ransomware that may benefit others from their in-group. Conclusions: These findings suggest political actors may be able to generate public support for morally questionable actions by emphasizing in-group benefits and the Robin Hood nature of an attack (e.g., outcome-based morality).
