nuclear weapons & public fears

American Environics, 2008

Getting to ZeroHow Americans Reason About Nuclear

Disarmament, Terrorism, and National DefenseAmerican Environics, November 2008


Mission: Understand underlying psychological factors behind why people believe what they believe.

AE hired to understand the basic ways in which people reason — not to do message testing.

The things people believe are often irrational (i.e. against their self-interest) and unconscious (i.e., people often don’t know that they are scared, or what they believe).

People rationalize unconscious and irrational behaviors and beliefs — thus we should be suspicious of those rationalizations.


We are strangers to ourselves…

My memory says, ‘I did that.’ My pride says, ‘I could not have done that.’

And my memory yields.”

Friedrich Nietzsche


Tradition of political psychology began in post-war era in attempt to understand why ordinary Germans supported the Nazis (e.g., Milgram)

Nietzsche, Freud, Arendt, Adorno, Altemeyer

“Conservative ideologies like virtually all other belief systems, are adopted in part because they satisfy various psychological needs.”

— Jost et al., 2003

Team: Dr. John Jost (NYU), Dr. Robb Willer (UC-B), Dr. Pamela Morgan, Nick Adams, Ted Nordhaus, Dr. John Whaley, Michael Shellenberger (AE)


Methods

Lit review of 91 academic sources and hundreds of experimental samples by top national social psychologist.

Some sources, such as Jost et al (2003), covered 88 samples and included over 22,000 subjects.

Segmentation of electorate based on underlying psychological drivers of opinion.

Cognitive linguistic analysis of four focus groups.

Experimental survey testing morality and effectiveness frames


Hierarchy of needs/modernization theory (Maslow, Inglehart): Psychology, sociology, and history all show that humans must get basic security and material needs met before we strongly desire, demand and defend civil liberties.


Mortality salience: Higher than normal fear of death, resulting in system justification and increased support for authoritarianism, pro-war ideologies.

Terror Management Theory: As people become more fearful, they are more motivated to protect their world, especially against intruders.

Authoritarianism (RWA): Stronger than normal support for — and trust in — government power to protect national security.


System justification: Justification of government and corporate power, including over individual rights, minority rights, and the environment.

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) The worldview that some groups better than others and should rule lesser groups.

Cognitive dissonance: Psychological distress from attempting to hold two apparently contradictory ideas at one time.

In Group/Out Group: Knowing who’s on our side, who’s not, becomes more important to people in situations of threat.


Research Questions

If mortality salience motivates conservative attitudes on human rights, what triggers this increased fear?

How do we avoid triggering mortality salience, authoritarianism, and system justification?

What narratives, meanings, and frames can we use to advance a more effective, intelligent and moral national security policy?

Could an affirmative counterterrorism and national security agenda and strategy help protect and advance rights while making people feel more secure?


Values-Based Segmentation of Electorate

Cannot generalize about voters — must understand how they reason differently.

Must look underneath stated opinions to underlying psychology and values.

American Values Survey method: 800 questions, household survey, 1,803 sample, +/-2.3% margin of error. Household survey avoids “social desirability bias”

Special battery co-created with Dr. Robb Willer, includes personality, SDO, and questions drawn from academic surveys measuring key political psych concepts.

Foreign policy, national security, nuclear questions replicate those in PIPA, Pew, Gallup and other surveys.


Segmentation Factors

Public segmented according to six factors. Each factor comprises questions that are strongly correlated with one another.

Peace and security factor #1: Use of nuclear weapons (6 questions)

Peace and security factor #2: Multilateralism and diplomacy, Iraq and Iran (6 questions)

Peace and security factor #3: Fear of terrorist attack (2 questions)

National security/human rights factor #1: Privacy, intrusion, ACLU (4 questions)

National security/human rights factor #2: Self expression, government repression (2 questions)


Acceptance of Violence

Active Government

Anomie-Aimlessness

Just Desserts

Civic Apathy

Confidence in Big BusinessEcological Fatalism

Everyday Rage

Racial Fusion

Technology Anxiety

Xenophobia

Ostentatious Consumption

Fatalism

Importance of Brand

Enthusiasm for New Technology

Penchant for Risk

Joy of Consumption

Multiculturalism

Sexual Permissiveness

Need for Status Recognition

Attraction for Crowds

Intuition & Impulse

Personal Escape

Largesse Oblige

Community InvolvementAdaptive Navigation

Look Good Feel Good

Pursuit of Intensity

Fear of ViolencePersonal Challenge

Obedience to Authority

Vitality

Parochialism

Traditional Gender Identity

Adaptability to Complexity

Search for Roots

Ecological Concern

Equal Relationship with Youth

Financial Security

Work Ethic

Aversion to Complexity

Religion a la Carte

Interest in the Unexplained

Propriety

Faith in Science

Traditional Family

Social Intimacy

National Pride

Emotional Control

American Dream

Heterarchy

Duty

Flexible Gender Identity

Sensualism

Social Responsibility

Ethical Consumerism

Global Consciousness

Cultural Assimilation

Effort Toward Health

Religiosity

Holistic Health

Culture Sampling

Rejection of Authority

Entrepreneurialism

Personal Creativity

Meaningful Moments

Spiritual Quest

Rejection of Order

Gender Parity

Importance of Spontaneity

Everyday Ethics

Introspection & Empathy

Flexible Families

Personal Control

Civic Engagement

Brand Apathy

Patriarchy

Sexism

American Entitlement

Social Mobility

Conformity to Norms

Modern Racism

Acknowledgement of Racism

Need for Uniqueness

Status Via Home

Deconsumption

Crude Materialism

NEW Socio-Cultural Trends

AUTHORITY

INDIVIDUALITY

SU

RV

IVA

LF

UL

FIL

LM

EN

T

United States 2007

Group-Based Social DominanceMale Decline and Discombobulation

Collapse

Apocolypse

TraditionalismBelief in Good and Evil

Maslow Outer-Directed Esteem

Importance of National StabilityReluctance to Change

Lipset Win at All Costs

Death Anxiety

Female Decline and Discombobulation

Maslow Inner-Directed Esteem

Lipset Personal Control

Maslow Meaningless Life and Future

SDO Opposition to Equality

Maslow Basic Needs

Maslow Self-Actualized

Maslow Belonging

Lipset Key Aspects of Freedom

Trust

Altruism

Animal Equality

Comfort with Ambiguity

Gratitude

Maslow Meaningful Life and Future

Discomfort with Ambiguity

Distrust

Openness to ChangeRejection of Tradition


Our Base: “Engaged Egalitarians” (COO2 - 16%) and Boundless Anti-authoritarians” (COO6 - 9%)

Focus groups done with two swing segments

Swings: Town Square Faithful (COO1 – 27%) and Reluctant Fearful (COO3 – 15%)

Swing segments chosen because we believe they will be most receptive to progressive arguments on national security and human rights.


Town Square Faithfuls

Traditional, religious, community-oriented, militaristic — but divided on Iraq, use of nukes, unilateralism.

“It is important to play by the rules, which explains why members of this segment have the second highest level of support for honoring international treaties, even though they also can support a go-it-alone war.

“This is why Town Square Faithfuls are such a compelling swing segment. They score very high on National Pride and Importance of National Stability, but score fairly low on American Entitlement.

“It is not a blind faith that they have for their country; it’s important to them for America to do the right thing, as they believe it usually has.”


Town Square Faithfuls

Male: 44Female: 56

White: 75Black: 14Latino: 9Asian: 2

Liberal: 6Moderate: 56Conservative: 48

Born Again: 68

Dem: 32Ind: 25Rep: 43


Reluctant Fearfuls

More fearful but less ideological than Town Square Faithful. Moderately liberal on nukes and militarism, moderately conservative on privacy, intrusion, liberties.

The top value is Aversion to Complexity. Intimidated and threatened by the vagaries of modern life, Reluctant Fearfuls like things to be simple and straightforward. And when things aren’t, as is usually the case, their typical response is a mixture of stress, fear and desire to flee.

“Seventy-six percent of Reluctant Fearfuls identify as political moderates. It’s not so much that they are always centrist in their views, it’s more that they don’t like going out on a limb. They don’t want to upset the status quo”


Reluctant Fearfuls

Male: 39Female: 61

White: 63Black: 18Latino: 16Asian: 3

Liberal: 9Moderate: 75Conservative: 15

Dem: 42Ind: 28Rep: 30


Finding #1:

Nukes + Terror = Fear of Death

• Linking terrorists with nuclear weapons results in “mortality salience” (fear of death)

• Mortality salience is strongly correlated with pro-war worldview.


Finding #2:

Nukes and Terror are Two Different Mental Frames

People think differently about how to defend against from terrorists vs. nuclear attack.

1. Terrorism: Preemptive defense

2. Nuclear: Shield defense(deterrence)

vs.


Finding #3: Terrorism frame leads people to justify preemptive nuclear strike.

When the preemptive defense against terrorism frame is associated with nuclear weapons, it leads people to justify the preemptive use of military force — and even nuclear weapons.

This includes Iran, which is viewed as a terrorist state.


Finding #4: Shield metaphor supports disarmament, but only up to a point.

Shield metaphor requires only that shield be strong enough to deter adversaries from attacking U.S.

Public thus might support some reduction in size of U.S. arsenal…

… but not all the way to zero, which they believe would leave U.S. vulnerable.

Thus, if disarmament is unilateral it must be done in a way that is perceived as not creating disadvantage for US.


Finding #5:

Nuclear nonproliferation arguments work only with particular nation states

Traditional nuclear non-proliferation arguments work in the context of nation-states that the public perceives can be reasoned with, such as India and Russia.


Finding #6: Deterrence viewed as possible with N. Korea

• Kim Jong-il perceived as imposing his rule on a generally reasonable country, interested in self-preservation and maintaining his power.

• Thus, deterrence and negotiation viewed as effective.


Finding #7: Deterrence viewed as impossible with Iran

• Ahmadinejad viewed as unstable, extreme, and bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States, and willing to die for beliefs.

• Iran viewed as terrorist state.

• Voters thus believe Iran can’t be allowed to gain nukes.

• Pre-emptive strike thus viewed as justified.

• Israel perceived as likely to act so we don’t have to.


Recommendations

1. Do not link terrorism and nuclear weapons

2. When talking about disarmament, use India and Russia as prototypical examples.

3. Normalize relations with, and perceptions of, Iran.

4. Frame U.S. nuclear stockpile as duplicative and unnecessary.

nuclear weapons & public fears

Education