Psychologists and nuclear war: A survey.

Polyson, James; Stein, David M.; Sholley, Barbara K.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.6.724

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is consistent with patterns observed by several other researchers (cf. The Gallup Poll, 1983, December;The Gallup Poll, 1984, January/ February;Miller, 1982, May 30;Nelson & Slem, 1985;Newcomb, 1986;Polyson, Stein, & Sholley, 1986).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War¹

Plous

1989

J Applied Social Pyschol

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Anchoring” results from insufficient adjustment up or down from an original— often arbitrary—starting value. Six sets of surveys were designed to assess the effects of anchoring on subjective likelihood estimates of a nuclear war. Based on responses from 1600 students, results indicated that: (a) likelihood estimates were strongly susceptible to anchoring; (b) neither likelihood estimates nor the effects of anchoring were significantly influenced by the ease with which respondents could imagine a nuclear war (outcome availability), by instructions to list the most likely path to nuclear war (path availability), or by casting the problem in terms of the avoidance, rather than the occurrence, of nuclear war; (c) the effects of anchoring extended to estimates concerning the efficacy of strategic defenses; and (d) likelihood estimates were affected by anchoring even after correcting for social demand biases. In estimating the likelihood of nuclear war and otherwise attempting to “think the unthinkable”, many students responded in a manner consistent with denial; the paper concludes with a discussion of these individuals.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War¹

Plous

1989

J Applied Social Pyschol

235

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most members of the American Psychological Association (APA) report reading about the issue, discussing it informally, and signing petitions, according to a recent survey (McConnell et al, 1986). Most APA members agree with the 1982 APA Council of Representatives resolution to support a nuclear freeze (Polyson, Stein, & Sholley, 1986). This concern, moreover, is not new.…”

Section: Implications For Psychologistsmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Fiske¹

1987

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…A recent survey of psychologists provides a clear example of this inconsistency between attitudes and behavior (McConnell et at., 1986). Although previous research had indicated that a large majority of psychologists support a nuclear weapons freeze (Polyson, Stein, & Sholley, 1986), less than 10% of respondents in the McConnell et al study had given their time, energy, or money to various peace-related 7rofessional organizations. For this group, as well as for other factions within our society, the transition from oppositional attitudes to political activism did not occur.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

The dynamics of inaction: Psychological factors inhibiting arms control activism.

Gilbert¹

1988

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies consistently indicate that the American public strongly opposes many aspects of current nuclear arms policy. However, despite this strong sentiment, only a small number of individuals are actively involved in opposing nuclear policies. Explanations of this lack of behavioral response that emphasize public apathy fail to account for prior instances of widespread public involvement in the area o farms control (e.g., the successful protest over atmospheric testing and the massive nuclear freeze rallies in 1982). Thus, the analysis of arms control inactivity must extend beyond general critiques of public apathy toward an understanding of factors that promote or inhibit behavioral opposition. The current article outlines a set of psychological factors that may serve to interrupt the connection between strong conviction against nuclear arms policies and subsequent political action. These proposed factors are used to evaluate the psychological utility of existing and potential strategies for promoting arms control activism. Subsequently, the implications of this conceptual framework for psychology' s understanding and promotion of arms control activism are discussed.

show abstract

Psychologists and nuclear war: A survey.

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War¹

Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War¹

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

The dynamics of inaction: Psychological factors inhibiting arms control activism.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Psychologists and nuclear war: A survey.

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War1

Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War1

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

The dynamics of inaction: Psychological factors inhibiting arms control activism.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War¹

Thinking the Unthinkable: The Effects of Anchoring on Likelihood Estimates of Nuclear War¹