Nuclear weapons concerns, agency beliefs, and social responsibility values in disarmament activism.

Abstract

This study examined the roles of attitudes and beliefs in determining disarmament activism. It investigated the contributions of nuclear weapons concerns, perceptions of control, and social responsibility values to the determination of antinuclear activism beyond the effects of attitudes and attitude strength. It was found that concerns about the danger of nuclear weapons, perceptions of personal control, and social responsibility values accounted for a larger proportion of the variance of antinuclear activism than antinuclear attitudes and attitude strength combined. The findings were discussed in terms of the nature of attitudes and beliefs and the relevance of these factors to involvement in peace and other social issues in a global community.This study investigates the contributions of concerns with nuclear weapons, personal control beliefs, and social responsibility values to the determination of antinuclear activism beyond the effects of attitudes and attitude strength. It is proposed that global problems, such as the threat of nuclear war, are more likely to evoke a coping response in the individual to reduce the threat if they arouse both personal concerns as well as appeal to social values. In an increasingly interconnected world, motivation for disarmament activism can be expected to continue to be based on both personal concerns and social values. The principles examined in this study are likely to operate for other large social issues as well, such as the desire for global peace and the prevention of environmental destruction and world hunger. These problems are often daunting for the individual to tackle, yet some do despite the magnitude of the challenge. It is important to find out why they do so.

The emotional construal of war: Anger, fear, and other negative emotions.

“…For instance, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988) and the expectancy-value model of social behavior (Feather & Newton, 1982; Rotter, 1954) exemplify models that advocate the significance of personal beliefs. In terms of explaining war, several personal convictions, such as social responsibility, perceived impact, as well as an individual’s attitude toward war, were found to predict overall anti-war sentiment (Cohrs & Moschner, 2002; Fox-Cardamone, Hinkle, & Hogue, 2000; Horvath, 1996). For example, the public’s general attitude (militarism–pacifism) was found to relate strongly to support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s intervention in Yugoslavia (Cohrs & Moschner, 2002).…”

The organization of social action.

“…Like perception of control, taking credit or blame is part of a secondary appraisal process in coping with stress (Lazarus, 1991). With regard to disarmament activism, agency beliefs, such as perception of control and power, correlate with moral responsibility (Horvath, 1996a; McClenney & Neiss, 1989). Feeling capable of influencing events may increase the individual’s sense of obligation to do something about the issues.…”

“…Social activists are motivated by a sense of moral responsibility, duty, or obligation. Feelings of moral responsibility increase the likelihood that the individual will engage in disarmament activism (Horvath, 1996a; McKenzie-Mohr, McLoughlin, & Dyal, 1992; Nemiroff & McKenzie-Mohr, 1992; Tyler & McGraw, 1983; Waldron, Baron, Frese, & Sabini, 1988).…”

“…Perceiving that we can resolve an issue is an inducement for social action (Hirsch 1990). Self-efficacy expectations are determinants of disarmament activism (Axelrod & Newton, 1991; Horvath, 1996a; McClenney & Neiss, 1989; McKenzie-Mohr et al, 1992; Wolf, Gregory, & Stephan, 1986), while perceived collective control, or the expectation that we can prevent war in collaboration with others, is associated with peace activism (McKenzie-Mohr et al, 1992). Perceived efficacy with regard to dealing with community issues is associated with a sense of community (Davidson & Cotter, 1989; McMillan et al, 1995) and with social action on community issues (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Florin & Wandersman, 1990; Wolff, 1987; Zimmerman et al, 1992; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988).…”