Psychological Responses to the Threat of Nuclear War

Abstract

We investigated the nature of psychological responses to the threat of nuclear war and the relationships between attitudes and behavior in three studies. The first was a quasi‐experimental study of the effects of a film depiction of nuclear war on attitudes and behavior. Results suggested that exposure was mediated by a sense of control over political events, but that exposure itself had no significant effect on psychological responses to nuclear war. The second was an experimental investigation of the effects of efficacy enhancing, fear arousing, or informational tactics as well as individual differences on memory for relevant information and political activism on the issue of nuclear arms control. Results indicated that men exposed to the fear arousal tactic were less likely to take action than those exposed to information alone or efficacy enhancement, whereas women exposed to fear arousal were more likely to act. Gender differences are explained in terms of the socialization of male responses to fear, the “macho” response. Those who showed less denial were more likely to act, as were those who stated intentions to take action. The third study employed structural modeling to examine the relationships between attitudes and behavior. Results supported the Model of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) in showing that intentions to act mediated the relationship between attitudes and behavior on this issue.

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

“…In this study, social responsibility values influenced activism. Social responsibility was also moderately correlated with perceived control, a finding similar to that of McClenney and Neiss (1989). Individuals who perceived some ability to influence events may, consequently, also have felt a moral obligation to do something.…”

“…For example, an attitude measure would focus on the value of reducing tensions among the superpowers whereas a belief measure would focus on the probability of nuclear war in the foreseeable future. In studies, however, in which the contents of nuclear attitude measures were similar to or overlapped with those of beliefs, the effects of attitudes on activism were weak or absent (Clark et al, 1989;McClenney & Neiss, 1989;Nemiroff & McKenzie-Mohr, 1992;Newcomb et al, 1992).…”

“…For example, perceptions of risk, threat, and harm from nuclear weapons (Axelrod & Newton, 1991; Nemiroff & McKenzie-Mohr, 1992; Tyler & McGraw, 1983; Waldron, Baron, Frese, & Sabini, 1988) and nuclear power (Gardner et al, 1982) have been associated with antinuclear advocacy. Perceptions of threat from nuclear weapons also appear to determine antinuclear behaviors beyond or in addition to the effects of measured antinuclear attitudes (Fiske et al, 1983; McClenney & Neiss, 1989; McKenzie-Mohr & Dyal, 1991; Nemiroff & McKenzie-Mohr, 1992; Waldron et al, 1988).…”

“…Expectations that certain actions can be effective to prevent war, or response efficacy beliefs, have been found to determine antinuclear activism (Axelrod & Newton, 1991; Fox & Schofield, 1989; McKenzie-Mohr & Dyal, 1991; Nemiroff & McKenzie-Mohr, 1992; Tyler & McGraw, 1983). Research has also indicated that beliefs in one’s ability to prevent nuclear war, or self-efficacy expectations, are also important determinants of antinuclear activism (Axelrod & Newton, 1991; McClenney & Neiss, 1989; McKenzie-Mohr et al, 1992). Perceived collective control, or the expectation that one can prevent war in collaboration with others, is also associated with peace activism, as indicated in some studies (McKenzie-Mohr et al, 1992), if not in others (Nemiroff & McKenzie-Mohr, 1992).…”

“…Antinuclear self-efficacy expectations have been found to determine antinuclear behaviors beyond the effects of nuclear attitudes (Axelrod & Newton, 1991; McClenney & Neiss, 1989). Antinuclear response efficacy beliefs have also been found to predict activism beyond the effects of antinuclear attitudes in some studies (McKenzie-Mohr & Dyal, 1991; Nemiroff & McKenzie-Mohr, 1992), if not in some others (Fox & Schofield, 1989).…”