This article was downloaded by: [Virginia Tech Libraries]On: 18 October 2014, At: 21:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Some Attitudes UnderlyingAmerican Participation in WarLeonard W. Doob aa Institute of Human Relations, Yale University , USAPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Leonard W. Doob (1941) Some Attitudes Underlying AmericanParticipation in War, The Journal of Social Psychology, 13:2, 475-487, DOI:10.1080/00224545.1941.9714094

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1941.9714094

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

The Journal of Social Psychology, S.P.s.s.I. Bulletin, 1941, 13, 475-487.

SOME ATTITUDES UNDERLYING AMERICAN PAR­TICIPATION IN WAR

Institute of Human Relations, Yale University

LEONARD W. DOOB1

A. INTRODUCTION

In the month of October, 1939, the Gallup Poll revealed that,although 28 per cent of the people in the United States were infavor of sending the American army abroad to fight against Ger­many if France and England were being defeated, 46 per cent feltthat this country would eventually be compelled to participate.fFrom one point of view these opinions might be considered' contra­dictory: since Americans did not want to enter the war and sincein a democracy people are supposed to be consulted before policyis determined, the two percentages should have been more or lessequal. At the same time people may have been imagining that, inspite of momentary opposition to participation, they-or perhapstheir neighbors-could be induced to change their opinions by thetrend of events and by propaganda, or that their own preferencesdo not determine policy at a time of emergency.

Propaganda, however, cannot function successfully unless peoplealready possess attitudes which can be employed to achieve the propa­gandist's aim; or else these attitudes must be carefully constructedon the basis of other pre-existing attitudes. The present investiga­tion is an attempt to discover and measure four general attitudesthat Americans possessed since the outbreak of war and that poten­tially could serve to create within them a favorable attitude towardAmerican participation in the conflict. The following four attitudesare suggested on the basis of responses made to public opinion polls:(0) Attitude toward war as an instrument of settling internationaldisputes; (b) attitude toward the belligerents; (c) patriotic attitudetoward the United States; (d) attitude toward the future progressof the war.

'The writer wishes to thank Professor Douglas McGregor for his co­operation in administering the scales.

'By February, 1940, these figures had dropped, respectively, to 23 and 32per cent.

475

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

476 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

By assuming that Americans were heavily identified with theAllies, the following hypothesis was formulated: a favorable atti­tude toward American participation in the war is strengthened tothe extent that individuals possess or acquire a favorable attitudetoward war, a more favorable attitude toward the Allies (and a lessfavorable one toward Germany) , stronger patriotism concerningthe United States, and a more pessimistic feeling concerning theprogress of the war from the point of view of the Allies.

The attitude toward American participation was studied after aninterval of 12 weeks in respect to changes, ability to recall previ­ously expressed attitude, and other psychological reactions.

B. PROCEDURE

The principal group of male students consisted of 135 students ina social psychology class at Yale University. This group repre­sented a very selected sample of the population: its average age wasclose to 20; its place of residence tended to be urban (50 per centcame from communities of over 100,000 inhabitants and only nineper cent from communities with a population of under 5,000); itwas predominantly Protestant (68 per cent, with six per cent re­porting "no religion") ; and it was wealthy (52 per cent reportedfathers' income to be $10,000 per year or over and 29 per centbetween $5,000 and $10,000). It was a group, therefore, whichwas of war age and which was probably destined to occupy impor­tant positions in the country.

To determine the generality of the conclusions, 71 students fromMassachusetts Institute of Technology were also questioned.

Mimeographed questionnaires were distributed to the Yale groupduring the last week of October and to the M. I. T. group towardthe end of December and the beginning of January, 1940. Theformer group answered the questions during the regular class session;the latter in their own rooms.

The first attitude to be ascertained was the one toward Americanparticipation in the war. One and only one of six alternatives wasto be checked; since only one student checked the statement that"The United States should enter the European war immediately onthe side of the Allies" and only one that "The United States shouldhave entered the European war on the side of the Allies immediatelyon the outbreak of that war in September," the population was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

LEONARD W. DOOB 477

divided into four groups according to which one of the followingstatements was checked:

1. The United States should not enter the European warunder any conceivable circumstances (hereafter referred to as"Pacifists") •

2. The United States should enter the European war onlyif this country is actuaIly threatened with invasion (hereaftercalled "America Defenders").

3. The United States should enter the European war onlyif the Western Hemisphere (North or South America) is beinginvaded (hereafter called "Hemisphere Defenders").

4. The United States should enter the European war onlyif the Allies (Great Britain and France) are being badlydefeated by Germany (hereafter called "Allies Defenders").

Four scales were employed to measure the four attitudes assumedto be related to the general one of participation. The simplifiedprocedure of Murphy and Likert (1) was followed: each state­ment was rated on a simple five-point scale with the categories of"Strongly Approve," "Approve," "Undecided," "Disapprove," and"Strongly Disapprove." For Scale IV the words "Agree" and "Dis­agree" replaced, respectively, "Approve" and "Disapprove." Scoringwas accomplished by assigning the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to thecategories in a consistent manner and then by adding the separatescores on each question. To be certain that the a priori assign­ment of scores had been consistent, an analysis of each item wasmade by comparing the average score of the top 25 students in theYale group (or 19 per cent of the total) with the bottom 25. Alow score was always made to signify the possession of an attitudeleading to American participation; thus a low score on Scale Imeant that the individual tended to favor war as a way of settlinginternational disputes.

At first odd-even reliability and comparisons of the four groupswere made by retaining all items which, it was discovered, had beenconsistently scored. Since the reliability coefficients of two scaleswere relatively low, it was decided to eliminate those items whichcould not survive the critical test of possessing a P of .02 or lesswhen the top 25 were compared with the bottom 25 by the methodof chi-square. The conclusions here reported are based on thescales with the poor items eliminated; almost all of the critical ratiosamong the four groups divided on the basis of attitude toward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

478 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

participation were slightly higher when those items were rejected.A brief description of each scale follows:

Scale I: Attitude toward war as a method of settling inter­national disputes. This scale was taken from Wilke (2) andcontained 30 items like the following: " War should be avoidedat all cost"; "The soldier suffers terribly and gains nothinq'";"It is an idle dream to abolisb war." Its corrected odd-evenreliability was found to be .91 and, when two items weredropped, this r remained the same.

Scale II: Attitude toward the belligerents. This scale con­tained 2+ items like these: "T'he Allies stand betoseen th e forcesof fascism and JVestern Civilization"; "T'h e British blockadeinterferes wit II th e riglIts of neutral nations"; "German cioiliza­tion lIM always been essentially destructive." When five itemswere eliminated, the corrected reliability coefficient was un­altered and remained .86.

Scale III: Patriotic attitude toward th e United States.Twenty-four items composed this scale such as the following:"The United States has potentially th e best soldiers andsailors in the «oorld"'; "T'he Monroe Doctrine is justified insetting up this country as th e defender of the Western hemis­ph ere'"; "T'h e United States is one of the last places in the'World sohere a decent civilization can be maintained." Whenfour items were dropped, the corrected reliability coefficientwas raised from .76 to .80.

Scale IV: Attitude toward th e future progreu of the war.Twenty-two items included: "T'h e British blockade will forceGermany to surrender, even thou a]: the war may last a greatmany years"; "Eventually th e Allies are bound to win the warwitliout military IIelp from this country"; "Germany will se­cure from Soviet Russia the economic resources she needs tocarryon the «oar:" Fifteen items could not survive the criticaltest; the remaining seven raised the corrected reliability coeffi­cient from .55 to .60.

Twelve weeks later a second brief questionnaire was distributedand answered by 144 students, 125 of whom had previously answeredthe first one. Five questions were asked: (a) Again the same sixalternatives regarding the conditions (if any) under which thiscountry should participate in the war were presented. (b) Theone of the six alternatives previously checked was asked to be re­called. (c) The effect of America's participation in the war "uponmy personal life (so far, for example, as my being drafted or secur-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

LEONARD W. DOOB 479

ing a better or worse job is concerned)" was checked on a four­point scale ranging from "extremely good" to "extremely bad."(d) The extent to which the person does "discuss the present war inEurope with my friends or think about it" was determined on afour-point scale. (e) "Concerning the possibility that the UnitedStates will enter the present European war" was checked on a five­point scale ranging from "extreme anxiety" to "no anxiety at all."

C. RESULTS

A concise summary of the results IS indicated In Table 1 which

TABLE

Scale I Scale II Scale III Scale IV %"Pacifists" 120.18±12.75 63.59± 7.22 69.41±9.42 23.36±2.42 8"America

Defenders" 94.37±13.35 54.45± 8.68 58.40±9.64 21.3+±3.79 30"Hemisphere

Defenders" 93.33±15.00 53.47± 8.92 60.60±8.54 22.48±3.02 43"Allies

Defenders" 83.56±14.25 47.30±10.38 56.66±9.46 18.28±3.36 19

Total 94.02±15.75 53.-l4± 9.78 59.92±9.58 21.43±3.64 100Possible range 28-140 19-95 20-100 7-35Obtained range 54-132 24-80 36- 88 11-32

refers only to the Yale group. The smallest group was the "Paci­fists," the next larger one the "Allies Defenders," and the "Hem­isphere Defenders" and "America Defenders" represented the atti­tude of the majority.

When it is remembered that a low score signifies an attitude thatis assumed to work toward American participation in the war, acomparison of the row containing the total averages on each scalewith the row indicating the possible range permitted by each scalereveals that (a) the obtained average for Scale I was closer tothe top end than the bottom of the possible range, (b) theaverage for Scale II was closer to the bottom than the top, and(c) the averages for Scale III and IV were almost exactly halfwaybetween. This means that, on the basis of these particular meas­uring instruments and assuming the midpoint of each scale as thecriterion, the group may be thought to have been opposed to war,in favor of the Allies, and at the midpoint in respect to patriotismand the future of the war. The fact that the sigmas and the obtainedrange for each scale appear to be relatively large indicates that the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

480 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

attitudes of these students at the time of measurement were diverse;there was no sign of the type of J-distribution which war-time con­ditions undoubtedly produce.

When the population is divided into the four subgroups in respectto attitude toward participating in the war, Table 1 demonstratesthat the averages of the "Hemisphere Defenders" and the "AmericaDefenders" were almost identical; the slight differences are com­pletely unreliable. In comparing these subgroups, a critical ratioof 2.5 is considered significant since this figure, with the combinednumber of degrees of freedom being always over 30, establishes thechances as 994 out of 1,000 that the obtained difference is signifi­cant. The same criterion of probability (994 out of 1,000) is em­ployed later in evaluating all critical ratios based on a smallernumber of cases.

In respect to attitude toward war (Scale I), the "Pacifists" wereleast belligerent, then the "American Defenders" and "HemisphereDefenders," and the "Allies Defenders" were most belligerent­all the differences are significant, the lowest critical ratio being 2.82.A similar and significant ranking occurred in regard to attitude to­ward the belligerents (Scale II) : the "Pacifists" were least friendlytoward the Allies and the "Allied Defenders" the most-here thelowest critical ratio is 2.58. On Scale III the "Pacifists" were sig­nificantly less patriotic than the other three groups, but the "America"and "Hemisphere Defenders" were not significantly different fromthe "Allies Defenders." The "Allies Defenders" were most pessi­mistic concerning the future of the war for France and England(Scale IV) in comparison with the other three groups which inthemselves were not significantly different from one another.

The M. I. T. group of students has statistically identical averageson each of the four scales in comparison with the Yale group. Thedifferences among the four subgroups, although they are in thesame direction as the Yale group, are not significant. Failure to findsignificant differences here may be due to two factors: the total Nof the group was only 71 and, as a result, there were only eight"Pacifists" and 12 "Allies Defenders"; the consequently high sigmasof the means helped produce low critical ratios. And then it is alsopossible that the M. I. T. attitudes were not differentiated on thebasis of attitude toward American participation.

When the Yal~ and M. I. T. groups are combined, identical but

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

LEONARD W. DOOB 481

slightly lower critical differences appear among the four subgroupson the four attitude scales as indicated for the Yale group alone.

1. Change

During a period of 12 weeks, 42 out of 125 Yale students, or 34per cent, changed their expressed attitudes. These changes are sum­marized in Table 2. When the column labelled "I 'Pacifists'" is

TABLE 2

CHANGES IN EXPRESSED ATl'ITUDES

(The columns represent the changes away from the expressed attitude; therows represent the changes toward the expressed attitude.)

I "America I "Hemisphere I "AlliesI "Pacifists" Defenders" Defenders" Defenders" Total

II "Pacifists" X 0 4 0 4II "America

Defenders" 2 X 11 3 16II "Hemisphere

Defenders" 9 X 8 18II "Allies

Defenders" 0 0 4- X 4

Total 3 9 19 11 42

read downward, it is seen, for example, that of the three individualswho disavowed this position during the interim one became a"Hemisphere Defender" and two "America Defenders." When therow labelled "II 'Pacifists'" is read from left to right, it is seenthat all four of the individuals who adopted this position in theinterim had previously been "Hemisphere Defenders."

The four attitudes toward American participation may be con­sidered to form a rough continuum, at one end of which are the"Pacifists," at the other the "Allies Defenders," and the "America"and "Hemisphere Defenders" in between. From Table 2 it isevident that without exception all changes occurred only one step ineither direction. No "Pacifist" became an "Allies Defender" andvice versa. All nine of those who changed from the position ofwanting to defend America decided instead to defend the Hem­isphere; and 11 out of 19 of the "Hemisphere Defenders" came tothe conclusion that they would participate only if America wereinvaded.

It can be noted on the same table that the number of "Pacifists"and "Hemisphere Defenders" remained about the same as a result

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

482 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

of the net changes, that the "America Defenders" had a net gamof seven and the "Allies Defenders" a net loss of seven.

When those in each of four groups who changed their attitudestoward participation are compared with those who did not in respectto the four scales, only three significant differences appear, partiallybecause the subgroups are so small. The following are the criticaldifferences:

1. Among the "Pacifists," the three who became "America" and"Hemisphere Defenders" were more favorably disposed toward war(Scale I) than those who remained "Pacifists" (CR = 3.67).

2. Among the "America Defenders," the nine who became "Hem­isphere Defenders" were more friendly toward the Allies (Scale II,CR = 3.29) and more pessimistic about the progress of the war fromthe Allies' point of view (Scale IV, CR = 4.11) than those whoremained "America Defenders."

Among the 19 who changed from being "Hemisphere Defenders"there were four who became "Pacifists" and an equal number whobecame "Allies Defenders." These two small groups representedshifts toward the opposite ends of the continuum. In respect to allfour attitudes, the "Pacifist" group had higher scores, which meansthat it had a less favorable attitude toward war and the Allies, wasless patriotic, and was less pessimistic concerning the future of theAllies in the war. Due to the small number in each group, onlyone of the critical ratios is significantly high: 6.58 in regard to atti­tude toward war (Scale I).

2. Recall

Eighty-three individuals out of 125 (or 66 per cent) recalledcorrectly their attitude previously expressed 12 weeks before. The42 subjects composing the group of those who recalled incorrectlyor not at all were not the same 42 who changed: the former groupincluded 10 individuals who did not actually change but who thoughtthey had changed or could not recall any previously expressed atti­tude; and the latter 10 individuals who changed but recalled cor­rectly. Of those who changed, 10, or 24 per cent, recalled correctly.

The chance expectancy for correct recall is one out of six, or 17per cent. Correct recall for the total group exceeds this figurestatistically, but correct recall for those whose expressed attitudechanged does not. It appears, however, that the incorrect recalls ofthose whose attitude changed have occurred not by "chance" but

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

LEONARD W. DOOR 483

due to certain lawful psychological processes. Twenty-five of the42, or S9 per cent, recalled as the first- expressed attitude the onethey had expressed the second time; nine individuals who became"America Defenders," for example, thought they had also been"America Defenders" 12 weeks previously when in reality theyhad designated themselves as "Hemisphere Defenders." It seemsprobable that some type of internal interference is at work. Of theremaining 17, eight thought they had changed when in reality theyhad not; and two who had not changed could not recall their firstexpressed attitude. When the recalls of this group of 17 are analyzedtogether, it is seen that four gave no recall and the remaining 13produced incorrect recalls which fluctuated, without exception. onlyone step along the continuum. None of the three individuals whobecame "Pacifists," for example, recalled incorrectly that they hadbeen "Allies Defenders": all three thought they had been "AmericaDefenders" when in reality they had been "Hemisphere Defenders."

3. Other Reactions

All four groups which have been separated on the basis of attitudetoward American participation displayed statistically identicalamounts of anxiety concerning "the possibility that the United Stateswill enter the present European war." The average for the entirepopulation was between "moderate anxiety" and "very little anxiety,"but much closer to the former category than the latter. Likewisethere were no significant differences among the four groups inrespect to the extent to which they "discuss the present war inEurope with my friends or think about it." Here the averagewas halfway between the categories "quite a bit" and "only a little."

The order in which the groups felt that American participation inthe war would tend to have a good effect "upon my personal life"was as follows: "Allies Defenders," "America Defenders," "Hem­isphere Defenders," and "Pacifists." When the four available cate­gories are given arbitrary weights of 1, 2, 3, and 4, no critical differ­ence between the "Allies" and the "America Defenders" appears,but there is one between the "Allies Defenders" and the "Hem­isphere Defenders" (CR = 2.80) and between the "Allies De­fenders" and the "Pacifists" (CR = 2.93). The "Allies Defenders"averaged close to "moderately bad" but in the direction of "mod­erately good," whereas the "Pacifists" were approximately halfwaybetween "moderately bad" and "extremely bad" and the population

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

484 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

as a whole about one-third of the distance between these categoriesand closer to the former. • .

There were no reliable differences among the four groups inrespect to age, size of home town, or religion. Eighty per cent ofthe "Allies Defenders" reported their fathers' income to. be $10,000per year or over, a figure significantly higher than the. other threegroups.

D. DISCUSSION

Throughout this discussion it must be remembered that the re­liability of the four scales was not particularly high and that oneof them, Scale IV, had an exceedingly low reliability. This latterscale, based on only seven items, is undoubtedly a poor one or elseit is possible that students had no consistent attitude toward thefuture of the war.

The measurement of attitudes in this rather crude fashion, how­ever, does suggest the psychological state of students during the fallof 1939. It shows, relatively, an anti-war spirit, a strong pro-Alliedsentiment, and a certain amount of patriotism and pessimism re­garding the outcome of the war. The dispersion of student attitudes,furthermore, was large, probably because social pressure to conformwas not very great. The most socially significant finding may bethe one which demonstrates that students who were divided intofour groups on the basis of attitude toward American participationwere also clearly different in respect to attitude toward the warand the Allies and that some of the groups could be differentiatedfrom others on the basis of patriotic attitude and feeling about thefuture. In as much as the critical ratios for the Yale group wereno higher than they were and those from theM. I. T. so muchlower, the attitude toward participation at that time, it would seem,may not have been linked too intimately with other attitudes withinthe personality of the individual student.

In line with such an interpretation is the fact that only the "Paci­fists" were reliably less patriotic than the other three groups. Thiswould suggest that '·'Pacifists" had been affected by their relativelyweaker patriotic attitude and that the greater patriotism of theother groups had simply helped induce them to be more belligerentwithout affecting the direction of this belligerency.

The most belligerent group of all, the "Allies Defenders," pos­sessed certain unique characteristics. It was the wealthiest group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

LEONARD W. DOOB 485

It was most pessimistic concerning the future of the war so faras the Allies were concerned. And it was different from two ofthe three groups in believing that actual participation in the warwould have the relatively least disastrous effect upon its personallife. Perhaps it felt that its wealth would enable it to avoid someof the ill effects of participating and hence was willing to help theAllies at relatively less personal cost j or perhaps it believed that itsposition in society might be threatened by an Allied defeat whichit foresaw more than any group.

The somewhat ephemeral character of the attitude toward partici­pation is also demonstrated by the large percentage of change andof incorrect recalls over a period of 12 weeks. It is clear, however,that both change and incorrect recall, when they did occur, weresubject to the students' internal attitudes and consequently variedwithin a rather definite limit. Evidently attitudes toward Americanparticipation were elastic but not completely elastic. Paper-and­pencil attitudes, therefore, may represent momentary impulses j yetthe impulses themselves are affected by more or less enduring dis­positions within the personality. Changes during this period, more­over, were not very radical.

Not too much emphasis can be placed on the differences in atti­tude between those who did and did not change, because only threeare reliable. Similarly only one of the differences between those"Hemisphere Defenders" who became "Pacifists" and those whobecame "Allies Defenders" is reliable. It is noteworthy, however,that the three "Pacifists" who assumed more belligerent positionshad been more favorably disposed toward war and that the "AmericaDefenders" who became interested in defending the hemisphere hadbeen more friendly toward the Allies and more pessimistic con­cerning the success of the Allies. This inadequate evidence, therefore,suggests that the measurement of these four attitudes gives some clueto change in attitude toward participation.

S-o far as underlying attitudes were concerned, "America" and"Hemisphere Defenders" seemed very similar. The fact that 48per cent of all change occurred between these two groups is addi­tional evidence on this point. And yet the reliable differences onScales II and IV between those "America Defenders" who became"Hemisphere Defenders" and those who did not change suggeststhat "Hemisphere Defenders" may be slightly more belligerent.

That the attitude toward American participation tended to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

486 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

unrealistic or verbal seems reasonable when it is observed that thegroups did not differ in respect to anxiety. Even though anxietywas measured in extremely crude fashion, it might have been antici­pated that those who believed this country should enter the warunder the relatively most imminent circumstances, the "Allies De­fenders," would possess greatest anxiety concerning this possibility.It may be that the relatively smaller anticipation concerning thedisastrous effects of the war on its personal life diminished the anxietyof this group. The fact that there were no differences in respect todiscussing the war or thinking about it among the four groups seemsto show that attitude toward participation at the start of 1940 hadlittle effect upon or correlation with these types of relevant behavior.As previously suggested, the country as a whole at the time of thesecond measurement was less apprehensive, if prediction concerningAmerican participation be accepted as a symptom of apprehension;it may be that diminished apprehension blurred differences both inanxiety and in discussion or thinking that might have been presentin October.

E. SU;\l:\fARY

One hundred thirty-five college students were divided into fourgroups on the basis of the alternative answer they checked regardingAmerican participation in the war: "Pacifists," "America Defenders,""Hemisphere Defenders," and "Allies Defenders." Subjects alsoanswered questions pertaining to four attitude scales which soughtto measure attitudes toward war, toward the Allies, toward theUnited States, and toward the future progress of the war; the scalespossessed corrected odd-even reliabilities, respectively, of .91, .86,.80, and .60. Twelve weeks after the first administration, attitudetoward participation was again ascertained together with certainreactions to the threat of war and war itself. The following con­clusions emerge:

I. On the basis of these scales, the group was opposed to war,in favor of the Allies, and midway in respect to patriotism and thefuture progress of the war; variability on each scale was great.

2. "Pacifists" were least favorably disposed toward war andthe Allies and were least patriotic; the "Allies Defenders" were mostfavorably disposed toward the war and the Allies and were mostpessimistic concerning the fate of the Allies; the "America" and"Hemisphere Defenders" were between the other two groups in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4

LEONARD W. DOOB 487

respect to attitude toward war and the Allies, but not significantlydifferent from the "Allies Defenders" in respect to patriotism norfrom the "Pacifists" in respect to feelings concerning the future.

3. Thirty-four per cent changed their expressed attitude towardparticipation after 12 weeks but all the changes represented a shiftof only one step along a three-point continuum of participation.

4. There were slight indications that knowledge of some ofthese attitudes underlying the specific attitude toward participationcould give a clue as to whether or not changes in that latter attitudewould occur.

5. When expressed attitude changed, recall of previously ex­pressed attitude was below chance expectancy; many of these falserecalls seem to have been due to interference from the newly ex­pressed attitude and the rest represented shifts of one step alongthe three-point continuum.

6. The four groups, divided on the basis of attitude towardparticipation, did not differ in respect to expressed anxiety or amountof time spent discussing or thinking about the war, but the "AlliesDefenders" anticipated that participation would have a relativelyless disastrous effect upon their personal lives than did the "AlliesDefenders" or the "Pacifists."

7. A group of 71 students from M. I. T. gave results similar tothe Yale group in respect to the four attitudes that have been meas­ured and in respect to general tendencies when the four groups werecompared, but the differences among the latter groups were lowerand unreliable.

REFERENCES

1. MURPHY, G., & LIKERT, R. Public Opinion and the Individual. NewYork: Harper, 1938.

2. WILKE, W. H. An experimental comparison of the speech, the radio,and the printed page as propaganda devices. Arch, of Psychol.,1934-,25, No. 169.

Institute of H uman RelationsYale University333 Cedar StreetNew Haoen, Connecticut

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vir

gini

a T

ech

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:50

18

Oct

ober

201

4