Public trust in the military and the civilian leaders who control it is central to democratic governance and national security. However, we know relatively little about how such trust is formed. This study examines how citizens update their trust in each actor following military-related events and whether information about the multilevel structure fundamental to democratic civil-military relations influences this process. Existing research has largely relied on performance theories, which assume a straightforward causal link between event outcomes and trust, and on observational data that complicate causal identification. Building on attribution theory, this study refines performance-based accounts by highlighting the multilevel structure. It conducted three survey experiments and a supplementary survey in Japan, a consolidated democracy with a considerable armed force and a population with a relatively strict view on civilian control. The results indicate that event outcomes influence evaluations of civilian and military actors to a similar degree, although underlying mechanisms are asymmetrical depending on the outcome’s direction. Moreover, differing from theoretical expectations, information about the multilevel structure does not substantially alter the effect of outcome information on trust in most cases, although it shapes attributional reasoning. These findings challenge conventional understandings of trust and accountability in democratic civil-military relations.

Can judicial action change public attitudes? While most empirical studies on the societal impact of court rulings have focused on the United States, particularly its Supreme Court, the influence of courts in other contexts remains largely unexplored. This study examines Japan—the only G7 country that does not legally recognize same-sex marriage—and explores how judicial rulings on same-sex marriage influence public attitudes. Using data from an original survey incorporating natural and experimental treatments, the analysis finds that while a court decision has no significant effect in a natural environment, experimental exposure to a reminder of the ruling can shift respondents’ views. The findings suggest that judicial action on same-sex marriage may have limited but measurable impacts on public attitudes, even in unconventional settings, and therefore contribute to discussions of external validity regarding the societal influence of courts.

The military’s compliance with civilian control – a requisite of democracy – is believed to be a key determinant of public confidence in the military. However, this claim is empirically inconclusive, and its analytical framework is underdeveloped at an institutional and individual level. Furthermore, most extant studies focus on the USA, and its validity in other environments is unknown. Hence, this study examined the causal relationship via an online survey experiment using hypothetical scenarios in Japan, an established democracy with a considerable armed force and civil–military norms imported from the USA decades ago. The results showed that the Japanese participants significantly lost their trust in the military for incompliance with civilian control amid an armed conflict. However, the magnitude of the impact was context-dependent; it substantially differed per the directions of incompliance (arbitrary action or inaction), the actors involved in the control (the prime minister and legislature), and the respondents’ attributes (partisanship). These findings reduce empirical inconclusiveness regarding the mechanism of public confidence in the military and could help to detect ominous signs regarding public attitudes toward democratic principles in modern society. Moreover, this study provides clues to understanding what people in Japan think about the aspect of control of their de facto military and how they evaluate this organization. These findings have significant implications for understanding international security dynamics, particularly at a time when Japan is launching its largest arms build-up since World War II to make its defense budget the third-largest worldwide, after the USA and China.

Abstract Do experts’ opinions influence public opinion? Although experts with academic backgrounds are gaining a presence in policy debates, empirical studies deliver inconclusive results on whether experts have a cueing effect. Moreover, while most studies focus on cases where experts propose or recommend policies, the influence of their criticism on government policy has not received much research attention. To fill this gap, through an online survey in Japan, we test the effect of constitutional scholars’ criticism on people’s support for a dispatch of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). Since constitutional academics, regarded as influential experts, have historically criticized the constitutional legitimacy of Japan’s security policy, they provide a suitable case to examine. The results show that such criticism has no causal effect on public attitudes even among the most liberal respondents or those with high confidence in constitutional scholars. Contrary opinions from retired general officers decreased support for the dispatch among individuals who were conservative or had high confidence in the JSDF. These findings imply that though people consciously sift through information from different sources, they mostly reject the opinions of academic experts.

Abstract Under what conditions are a country’s residents likely to express favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward the United States? I discuss this question using survey data from 38 countries, focusing on the possible impacts that the active approach by the United States toward security threats has on the psychology of countries’ residents. The results show that the larger the U.S. military presence in a country, the more likely that its residents are to express negative attitudes toward the United States. Meanwhile, citizens who feel threatened by specific types of global actors that the U.S. government actively confronts as security threats are less likely to express negative attitudes toward the United States, and particularly less likely to do so the larger the U.S. military presence in their country. These findings contribute significantly to understanding the shifts in the socio-political dynamics of regions such as the Asia-Pacific, where the United States has long implemented an active approach.