People's reactions to nuclear war: Implications for psychologists.

Abstract

Psychologists have a long history of interest in nuclear war, and recently this interest has peaked. One of psychology’s contributions has been to increase our understanding of the average citizen’s response to the threat of nuclear war. This article reviews available data that document the modal adult’s beliefs, feelings, and actions regarding nuclear war. It examines the discrepancies between people’s beliefs about the horrific possibility of nuclear war and their relative lack of affective and behavioral response. The article also reviews data on the possible psychological and social sources of those reactions. Finally, it contrasts the average citizen with the antinuclear activist and with the survivalist. A sense of political efficacy and heightened issue salience appear to distinguish people who are active and potentially to persuade people who are inactive. Many of people’s reactions to nuclear war fit the standard findings regarding citizen response to other political issues, so from that perspective the discrepancies between people’s horrific beliefs and their lack of affective and behavioral response are not at all surprising. The article closes with comments on the dangers of taking the prescriptive stance that this issue should be different from other political issues; on the risk of false consensus among psychologists who are active in nuclear issues, on possible strategies for psychologists who wish to increase activism; and on a research agenda for continued work by psychologists.

Predictors of Change in Feminist Activism Through Women’s and Gender Studies

“…Research evidence does not suggest that activists are more anxious, alienated, or emotionally disturbed than non-activists (Abramowitz 1973;Hirsch 1990;Kelly and Breinlinger 1995;Klandermans 1984). Instead, participants in political action have been distinguished by a strong belief that they can, working in concert with others, effect meaningful social and political change (Cole et al 1998;Edwards and Oskamp 1992;Fiske 1987). For example, members of antinuclear groups who took an active part in the anti-war movement believed that they personally could contribute to the effort to reduce the chances of a nuclear war.…”

Frightening Information and Extraneous Arousal: Changing Cognitions and Behavior regarding Nuclear War

“…The fifth measure assessed antinuclear stance: The more that frightening information convinces people that nuclear war would result in the devastation of humanity, the less willing they should be to use nuclear weapons on other people, including the Soviets. The sixth measure, the number of words used in the description of nuclear war, was used to appraise the salience of nuclear war: Some theorists believe that high salience may be a prerequisite to change in an antinuclear direction (Fiske, 1987;Schofield & Pavelchak, 1985).…”

Case Study: Public Consensus Building on the Internet

“…Absent such a feeling of efficacy, it is unlikely that individuals will become involved in collective campaigns, and a number of studies have found empirical support for the role of this factor. 27,32,33 Coupled with belief amplification emphasizing political efficacy, individuals' successful participation was justified more by experts' analyses of their activism and protest online and offline. The experts' analyses were posted on their web site and delivered to its email newsletter subscribers, thus keeping them updated in a timely manner and emphasizing a sense of accomplishment.…”