The Threat of Nuclear War: Risk Interpretation and Behavioral Response

Abstract

This study examines the psychological antecedents of behavioral responses to the threat of nuclear war. Two groups known to have responded behaviorally to the threat of nuclear war-nuclear freeze activists and survivalists-are compared to a sample of members of the general public. The influence of four types of psychological antecedents was explored. The antecedents studied were: judgments of risk, efficacy judgments, attributions of causality and moral responsibility, and general political orientations. The results suggest that citizens' behaviors in response to the threat of war are influenced by rational factors, i.e., by judgments of the potential efficacy of actions and by judgments of their potential causal role in preventing war. In addition, judgments concerning citizens' moral responsibility for preventing war exercise an independent effect upon behavior. These results suggest the importance of exploring citizens' psychological interpretations of social and political events as a means of understanding behavioral reactions to those events.One of the most salient current social issues in America is the threat of war. Recent public opinion polls indicate that the majority of American citizens are concerned about the possibility of war. These concerns The authors would like to express their appreciation to Robert A. Cleland of the Committee for a Nuclear Overkill Moratorium and James Jones of Live Free, Inc., for their generous assistance and comments, and to Joe Fortunato and Keith Gorski for help in data collection and coding.

Group Identification, Intergroup Perceptions and Collective Action

“…the sense that the individual citizen can have an impact on the political process. For example, Fiske (1987) argues that, "The antinuclear activist believes that nuclear war is preventable, not inevitable, and that citizens working together can influence government action to decrease the chance of a nuclear war" (p. 213; see also Hamilton ef aL, 1987; Locatelli & Holt, 1986;Tyler & McGraw, 1983;Wolf, Gregory & Stephan, 1986). It is argued that the activist's specific sense of "nuclear efficacy" is linked to a broad sense of personal (rather than external) control over life events in general (locus of control; Rotter, 1966) which leads him or her to become involved in other types of political activity as well (but see Levenson, 1981).…”

Components of Vested Interest and Attitude-Behavior Consistency

“…Evidence for the effects of certainty on attitude-behavior consistency is available in Tyler and McGraw's (1983) research on antinuclear activists. In a survey of citizen participation in antinuclear activities, the researchers found that the activists were much more certain than nonactivists that a nuclear war would occur.…”

Self‐Enhancement and Social Responsibility: On Caring More, but Doing Less, Than Others

“…If, for example, individuals believe that they are more concerned than others about the environment, or if they believe that they already do more than other people do, they may decide not to take further actions to protect the environment. This possibility is particularly likely given the fact that environmentalism and other forms of activism are pogitively associated with a personal sense of responsi bility (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986;Tyler & McGraw, 1983). To date, however, no researchers have suggested that self-enhancement biases in social concern may serve to impede activism.…”