Individual Differences in Attitudes Towards Nuclear Arms Policies: Some Psychological and Social Policy Considerations
| Author | Seymour Feshbach,Michael J. White |
| Published date | 01 June 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338602300204 |
| Date | 01 June 1986 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Individual
Differences
in
Attitudes
Towards
Nuclear
Arms
Policies:
Some
Psychological
and
Social
Policy
Considerations
SEYMOUR
FESHBACH
&
MICHAEL
J.
WHITE
University
of
California,
Los
Angeles;
Ball
State
University
Three
studies
are
reported
which
examine
the
influence
of
individual
differences
among
US
citizens
on
support
for
nuclear
disarmament
and
moratorium
policies.
Results
from
the
first
study
showed
several
significant
differences
between
supporters
and
non-supporters
of
a
nuclear
moratorium,
with
non-sup-
porters
evidencing
considerably
more
hostility
toward
the
Soviet
Union
and
willingness
to
defer
to
ex-
perts.
A
second
study
indicated
that
persons
who
valued
children
highly
were
considerably
more
likely
to
have
pro-nuclear
disarmament
attitudes.
The
third
study,
conducted
in
’Middletown
USA’
(Muncie,
Indiana),
showed
that
supporters
and
non-supporters
of
a
nuclear
freeze
differed
on
two
basic
factors:
(1)
fear
and
distrust
of
the
Soviet
Union
and
(2)
willingness
to
characterize
supporters
of
the
freeze
as
stupid
and
unpatriotic.
Non-supporters
were
also
more
likely
to
view
a
freeze
as
useless
due
to
their
per-
ception
of
Soviet
propensity
to
cheat
on
an
agreement.
When
considered
from
the
perspective
of
peace
activists,
these
results
have
several
implications.
Most
importantly,
those
attempting
to
mobilize
public
support
for
nuclear
control
should
focus
their
messages
to
the
public
on
how
national
security
can
be
en-
hanced
through
arms
control
agreements,
on
the
patriotism
of
supporting
such
a
plan,
and
how
an
indi-
vidual
citizen
—
by
supporting
an
effective
plan
—
can
have
an
impact
on
reducing
shared
anxiety
con-
cerning
nuclear
war.
It
is
argued
that
efforts
to
emphasize
the
horrific
aspects
of
nuclear
war
will
be
lar-
gely
ineffective
in
increasing
support
for
nuclear
disarmament.
1.
Introduction
This
paper
results
from
an
ongoing
effort
to
apply
the
methods
of
behavioral
science
to
further
the
general
goal
of
peace
and,
more
specifically,
to
further
a
particular
advocacy
goal
-
namely,
the
adoption
of
nuclear
dis-
armament-moratorium
oriented
policies.
While
a
nuclear
moratorium
and
nuclear
disarmament
are
the
specific
points
of de-
parture
for
the
three
studies
which
we
will
report
upon,
the
over-riding
concern
is
the
threat
of
nuclear
war.
A
major
challenge
for
behavioral
scientists
is
the
development
and
implementation
of
research
programs
that
may
help
in
some
degree,
however
small,
to
reduce
that
threat.
These
programs
may
take
many
forms.
Indeed,
a
number
of
ana-
lytical
approaches
are
necessary
to
fully
un-
derstand
the
growth
of
nuclear
arsenals,
the
nature
of
nuclear
policies,
and
the
larger
is-
sue
of
international
relations
in
a
nuclear
age.
While
some
of
these
perspectives
fall
beyond
the
topical
range
appropriate
for
study
by
psychologists
such
as
ourselves,
others
involving
the
nature
of
attitudes
and
beliefs
concerning
nuclear
weapons
are
clearly
within
our
traditional
competencies
and
interests
(cf.
Klineberg
1984).
In
point
of
fact,
attitudes
and
opinions
of
residents
of
the
United
States
and
Western
Europe
con-
cerning
nuclear
arms
issues
have
attracted
mounting
attention
by
psychologists
and
other
behavioral
scientists.
In
a
recent
review
of
surveys
conducted
between
1945
and
1982,
Kramer,
Kalick
&
Milburn
(1983)
note
that
a
systematic
change
has
taken
place
in
American
public
opinion
during
this
period.
In
1949,
for
ex-
ample,
50%
of
the
population
sampled
agreed
that
the
US
would
be
justified
in
us-
ing
nuclear
weapons
if
a
US
ally
in
Western
Europe
was
attacked
by
the
Soviet
Union.
This
percentage
had
dropped
to
28%
by
1982.
A
similar
change
occurred
in
regard
to
support
for
a
mutual
freeze
on
the
produc-
tion
of
nuclear
weapons.
Related
to
the
de-
crease
in
support
both
for
nuclear
armament
build-up
and
for
nuclear
weapons
use
was
an
To continue reading
Request your trial