the correlates of antinuclear activism: attitudes, subjective norms, and efficacy

The Correlates of Antinuclear Activism: Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Efficacy

LEE FOX-CARDAMONEI STEVE HINKLE Kent State University L'iiiversihi ofKent and /Miami L'niversih

MARY HOGUE Ken/ State L'niversity

Ajzen's (1988) theorq of planned behavior was modified and used to examine antinuclear behavior. Subjects completed a questionnaire measuring their antinuclear attitudes, their perceptions of support for taking antinuclear action, and their perceptions of efficacy i n this arena. Then. an antinuclear behavioral intentions questionnaire was presented, as we11 as several opportunities to engage in various antinuclear actions. Regression analyses indicated that Ajzen's model was supported to the extent that attitude emerged as a significant predictor of antinuclear intentions and behaciors. Subjective norms and efficacy were not significant predictors of either intentions or behaviors. Models incorporating behavior- specific attitude measures accounted for more variance than did models using more general attitude measures toward nuclear irariweapons.

The issue addressed in this study concerns the ongoing debate over the relationship between attitudes and behavior. Specifically, the issue here is how attitudes toward antinuclear activism are related to actual antinuclear behaviors. When will people with attitudes against the proliferation of nuclear weapons take actions consistent with these attitudes (Fiske, 1987; Fiske, Pratto, & Pavelchak, 1983; Nemiroff & McKenzie-Mohr, 1992)? This question was addressed using Ajzen's (1988) theory of planned behavior, with some minor modifications to fit the nuclear arena.

Ajzen's ( 1 988) theory of planned behavior states that intentions to perform a given action are critical to predicting behavior. Intentions are affected by three variables: attitudes toward a given behavior (favorable or unfavorable evalua- tions of the behavior), subjective norms (perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a given behavior), and perceived behavioral control (the perceived ease/difficulty of performing the behavior). The model states that to the extent that attitudes and subjective norms surrounding the performance of a given behavior are favorable, and to the extent that perceived behavioral control

'Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lee Fox-Cardamone, Kent State University, Stark Campus. 6000 Frank Avenue, NW. Canton, OH 44720. e-mail: Ifox-cardamone@) stark. kent.edu.

484

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000, 30, 3 , pp. 484-498. Copyright 0 2000 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

CORRELATES OF ANTINUCLEAR ACTIVISM 485

concerning the behavior is high, the individual’s intention to perform the behavior is greater. In turn, the likelihood of the behavior being enacted is correspond- ingly higher if intentions to perform the behavior are high.

It is important to note that the three predictors are posited to be independent. For example, an individual can have favorable attitudes and feel facilitative social pressure toward performing a given behavior, but form a lowered behavioral intention if there is little or no perception of control over that behavior. Sim- ilarly, an individual could have antinuclear attitudes but fail to perceive support for those attitudes, or conversely live in an environment that strongly supports antinuclear activity, but not have positive attitudes toward such activity. In any of these cases, the likelihood of forming behavioral intentions that correspond to antinuclear action would be diminished, as would the probability of antinuclear action.

The Ajzen ( 1 988) model encompasses important variables found to distin- guish antinuclear activists from nonactivists quite well. For example, Ajzen believes that attitudes are important in predicting behavioral intentions. This relationship is clearly supported in the literature, where antinuclear activists are less favorable toward nuclear weapons and more positive toward a nuclear freeze or disarmament (Fiske et al., 1983; Flamembaum, Hunter, Silverstein, & Yatani, 1985; Schofield & Pavelchak, 1985).

Ajzen (1988) also postulates that subjective norms are an important predictor of behavioral intentions. This, again. is consistent with the literature, which indi- cates that antinuclear activists perceive social support for their actions and are fortified by this support (Fiske, 1987; Waldron, Baron, Frese, & Sabini, 1988).

Finally, the control variable described by Ajzen (1 988) is similar to what has been termed eflcacy by researchers concerned with identifying the correlates of political activism. Ajzen believes that if an individual perceives that he or she has a great deal of control over whether a behavior takes place, then he or she is more likely to express behavioral intentions consistent with taking the action. This is similar, although not identical to, what has been termed political/nuclear efficacy in the nuclear literature. Ajzen talks about control in a self-efficacy sense-the individual believes that he or she is able to perform a given action. In contrast, politicalhuclear efficacy is the feeling that the individual’s efforts do make a difference in changing governmental actions or policies. The difference is between believing that one has the ability to perform a given action (e.g., writing a letter to a Congressional representative, attending a rally), and believing that, once performed, such actions can make a difference with regard to the nuclear arms race.

In terms of the nuclear issue and this specific study, it seems appropriate to modify Ajzen (1988) and to examine nuclear efficacy, rather than self-efficacy. Most people do not doubt their ability to sign a petition or to attend a rally. The mechanics of these behaviors are not difficult. Instead, people may doubt that their efforts in attending a rally or signing a petition have much of an impact on

486 FOX-CARDAMONE ET AL.

the policies surrounding nuclear weapons/war. This reasoning has some support in the literature, where work using protection motivation theory has demon- strated that perceived coping response efficacy (comparable to what is termed political/nuclear efficacy here) was the best single predictor of antinuclear behavioral intentions, ahead of self-efficacy expectancy and other variables (Wolf, Gregory, & Stephan, 1984).

Wolf et at. (1984) also reported an interaction between self-efficacy expectancy and coping response efficacy, indicating that if one believes that a response is likely to be ineffective, then having the time, resources, or ability to engage in that response are irrelevant considerations in deciding to take action. In the case of the nuclear arena, then, a belief that the political process of collective action is an effective means of change may be necessary before individuals will take antinuclear action (Fox & Schofield, 1989; Milburn, Watanabe, & Kramer, 1986; Sivek & Hungerford, 1990).

The majority of studies examining antinuclear activism have attempted to link it to an extensive array of demographic, personality, and situational characteristics (see Fiske, 1987. for a review). One of the major limitations to this literature, however, is that it lacks substantive theoretical underpinnings (McKenzie- Mohr, McLoughlin, & Dyal, 1992). Only a few studies offer a theoretical ratio- nale for why certain variables appear to be linked to antinuclear activism. Those studies that do offer some theoretical speculation often do so in a post hoc man- ner. Because of this, the nuclear literature is rather chaotic; numerous variables have been studied in a largely atheoretical fashion. In contrast, the present study tests several theoretically based hypotheses about the determinants of antinuclear behavior.

Overview of the Proposed Study

Using Ajzen’s ( 1988) theoretical framework, this study examines whether Americans who hold appropriately favorable attitudes toward antinuclear involvement, who perceive the norms surrounding such involvement to be positive, and who believe that their efforts can deter a nuclear catastrophe are more likely to have antinuclear behavioral intentions and to get involved in antinuclear behaviors than are those who do not possess these characteristics. Participants in the study first completed a questionnaire assessing both their general attitudes toward nuclear issues, as well as their attitudes toward specific antinuclear behaviors. Next, the subjects’ perceived sense of support for taking antinuclear actions and their perceptions of nuclear efficacy were assessed. A behavioral intentions questionnaire was administered as the main dependent variable. In addition, the participants were presented with antinuclear behavioral opportunities. They were given the opportunity to sign an antinuclear petition, as well as opportunities to sign up (a) to receive more information about an antinuclear war


group, (b) to receive more information about donating time to the group, and (c) to receive more information about donating money to the group.

Hypotheses

Hypotheses tested in this study fall into four categories. The first category concerns the predictive effects of each of the three variables in the Ajzen (1988) model. These hypotheses are derived directly from the model.

The second category of hypotheses deals with interaction terms. Although Ajzen and his colleagues (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Schifier & Ajzen, 1985) have not been able to significantly improve the prediction of intentions with the addition of interaction terms involving perceived behavioral control, social support, and attitudes, other studies reach different conclusions. Hinkle and Brown (1989), in examining the utility of Ajzen’s approach in another domain, report that interaction terms involving efficacy do improve the prediction of behavioral intentions. Fox and Schofield (l989), while not using Ajzen’s framework, found that interaction terms involving efficacy improved the prediction of antinuclear behavioral intentions.

The third set of hypotheses address Ajzen’s ( 1988) ideas regarding specificity. The best match between attitudes, intentions, and behavior should occur when these constructs are measured at the same level of specificity. Two sets of attitude measures were obtained, including a measure of general attitudes toward nuclear issues and a measure of attitudes toward a number of specific antinuclear behaviors. Comparison of these two types of attitude measures allows examination of the relative predictive powers of general versus specific attitude measures.

The fourth category of hypotheses concerns the relationship between behavioral intentions and engaging in actual behaviors. Ajzen (1988) believes that behavioral intentions are the best predictor of behavior; therefore, those factors that predict behavioral intentions should also predict actual behavior.

Attitudes, Subjective Norms, and Eflcacy

Hypothesis 1. Attitudes will be correlated with behavioral intentions. Subjects who espouse more favorable antinuclear attitudes will exhibit a greater tendency to express behavioral intentions.

Hypothesis 2. Subjects who perceive social supportlpressure for expressing antinuclear intentions will be more likely to express favorable behavioral intentions than will individuals who do not perceive such supportJpressure.

Hypothesis 3. Individuals who feel a sense of efficacy in the nuclear domain will exhibit a greater tendency to express antinuclear


behavioral intentions than will those who feel little efficacy in this domain.

Interaction Effects

Hypothesis 4. There will be a significant Attitudes x Efficacy interaction in predicting antinuclear behavioral intentions. When efficacy is low, attitudes should make a relatively small difference in the subject’s decision to express antinuclear behavioral intentions since subjects feel that such actions are not particularly effective. When efficacy is high, however, antinuclear attitudes should strongly encourage the expression of intentions.

Hippothesis 5. There will be a significant Subjective Norm x Effi- cacy interaction in predicting behavioral intentions. With low efficacy, subjective norms should make a relatively small difference in the subject’s decision to express antinuclear behavioral intentions since subjects feel that such actions are not effective. With high efficacy, however, subjective norms should strongly encourage action.

Specific Versus General Predictors ofBehaviora1 Intentions and Acrions

Hypothesis 6. Attitudes that are measured with regard to a specific behavioral intention will better predict that intention than will a more global attitude measure.

Predicting Behavioral Intentions and Actions

Hypothesis 7. Hypotheses 1 through 6 regarding behavioral intentions should also hold for predicting specific antinuclear actions.

Method

Participants

The participants were 54 male and 77 female undergraduate students at Miami University. Their participation fulfilled course requirements regarding research involvement.

Procedure

Subjects came to the laboratory in groups of 8 to 12 for a study ostensibly dealing with attitudes about current social issues. Subjects were told that each of them would be randomly assigned to answer questions on one social issue- either nuclear war, world hunger, human rights, or environmental issues. In real- ity, all subjects received questionnaires on nuclear issues.


Measures

Znitial questionnaire. Subjects initially filled out a questionnaire assessing several aspects of their general attitudes toward nuclear war/weapons. Many of the items have been used in previous research (Fox & Schofield, 1989; Fox- Cardamone & Hinkle. 1989). The following global attitudes were assessed: level of antinuclear concern: level of agreement with a disarmament versus deterrence perspective; beliefs with regard to the likelihood and severity of a nuclear disaster; and feelings of responsibility regarding involvement in the issue. In addition, individual’s attitudes toward a number of specific antinuclear behaviors were assessed. Of specific relevance to the present research were items assessing attitudes toward signing an antinuclear petition and toward seeking information. donating time, and donating money with respect to an antinuclear group. Finally, items regarding the subjects’ perceptions of social support for taking antinuclear actions as well as their perceptions that they could have an impact by taking such actions were also assessed.

Dependent variables. The main dependent measures were included on a behavioral intentions questionnaire. This questionnaire asked subjects to indicate on a 5-point scale how likely they were to take various antinuclear actions in the next 3 months (Fox & Schofield, 1989; Fox-Cardamone & Hinkle, 1988; Schofield & Pavelchak, 1985). Relevant to the present research were items assessing behavioral intentions with respect to seeking information about an antinuclear group and donating time and nioney to an antinuclear group.

Additionally, there were four overt behavioral measures. The experimenter presented a cover story explaining that, in return for their consultation in devel- oping materials for the research project, a local antinuclear group had asked for a few minutes of time to speak to the subjects. A confederate then entered the room, presented a brief description of a (fictional) antinuclear group, and asked the subjects to sign a petition espousing an antinuclear weapons position. The confederate also presented sign-up sheets on which subjects could indicate their interest in receiving information about the antinuclear group, donating time to the group, and donating money to the group.

Note that the behavioral intentions questionnaire did not include an item concerning petition signing. This was done in order to have one behavioral measure in the study uncontaminated by an immediately preceding expression of behavioral intentions.

Results

Subjects ’ Characteristics

A profile of the subjects, based on their responses to the scales, indicated that the subject sample was moderately concerned about nuclear war ( M = 5.02, SD =


1.20, on a 9-point scale) and somewhat favorable toward a disarmament stance ( M = 6.3 1, SD = 1.01). Subjects perceived the likelihood of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union to be fairly low ( M = 3.80, SD = 0.57), but the majority (77%) believed that they themselves would be killed if such a war occurred. Perhaps because of the low perceived likelihood of a nuclear war, subjects felt only moderately obliged to try to prevent such a war ( M = 4.45, SD =

1.06). Attitudes toward specific antinuclear behaviors were fairly positive ( M =

3.18, SD = 0.37, on a 5-point scale), although prior instances of having taken such behaviors were fairly uncommon ( M = 1.40, SD = 0.39, on a 5-point scale).

The initial manipulation check indicated that no subjects were able to guess the experimental purpose of the study. In addition, data from a second manipulation check indicated that only 18.3% of the subjects suspected the possibility of confederate involvement in the study (and most of these suspicions were not expressed with any certainty), and less than 4% indicated that they felt forced to sign the petition. I t appeared that several aspects of the procedure served to reduce suspicion. For example, the experimenter thanked the subjects and handed out credit slips prior to the subjects being offered the behavioral opportunities. The experimenter left the room during the representative's presentation. Also, the representative differentiated herself from the experimenter through a more for- mal mode of dress and by carrying a coat and portfolio to suggest that she was coming from outside of the building.

Measuring the involvement level of subjects was more difficult, but the experimenter was instructed to pay particular attention to the subjects' demeanor during experimental participation. Subjects appeared to be interested and involved by the questionnaires, as well as by the appearance of the confederate.

Composition of Measures and Their Reliabilip

Data analyses used predictor variables including general antinuclear attitudes, specific antinuclear attitudes, subjective norms, and et'ficacy. Criterion variables included the three behavioral intention measures and four overt behavioral measures. The general attitudes measure was comprised of several subscales which generally yielded satisfactory Cronbach's alpha values: level of antinuclear concern ( a = .87); level of agreement with a disarmament versus deterrence perspective (a = .85); and beliefs with regard to the likelihood and severity of a nuclear disaster (a = 37). Feelings of responsibility regarding involvement in the antinuclear issue yielded a somewhat lower, but still acceptable, alpha value ( a =

.43). These scales were aggregated into a single overall measure of general antinuclear attitudes (a = .64). The subjective norms and efficacy scales also pro- duced satisfactory alpha coefficients (subjective norms, a = .93; efficacy, a = .62). The measures of specific attitudes, behavioral intentions, and overt behaviors were all comprised of single items.


Hypothesis Testing

Note that two parallel sets of analyses were conducted at different levels of measurement specificity. Thus, one set of analyses used the general attitude measure, while the other set used behavior-speci fic attitude measures as predictors of intention and action.

Aniinuclear behavioral intentions. The initial set of analyses predicted behavioral intentions from specific attitudes, subjective norms, and effcacy. Spe- cifically, participants had indicated their intentions to seek further information on the issue, to donate time to the issue, and to donate money to the issue. Regres- sion analyses using specific attitude items, subjective norms, and effcacy to predict behavioral intentions were performed for each of the three behavioral intentions measures. For information-seeking intentions, F(3, 125) = 11.01, p < .001, attitude was the only significant individual predictor variable (p = 0.43,~ < .OO 1); the variance that was accounted for equaled 2 1 %. For time-donation intentions, F(3, 125) = 5.97,~ < .001. again attitude was the only significant individual predictor variable (p = 0.35,~ < .001); the variance that was accounted for was 12.5%. Finally, for money-donation intentions, F(3, 125) = 10.09, p < .001, attitude was also the sole significant individual predictor (p = 0.43, p < .OO 1); the variance that was accounted for equaled 19.5%. Thus, these results are consistent with Hypothesis 1, but fail to support Hypotheses 2 and 3. That is, while the specific attitude measures were significant predictors of behavioral intentions, subjective norms and efficacy were not.

When parallel analyses were conducted using the general attitude index in place of the behavior-specific attitude measures, none of the three resulting regression equations were significant. Thus, as predicted in Hypothesis 6, specific attitude measures were superior to the general measure in the prediction of behavioral intentions.

Analyses were also computed expanding all of the previous models to include Attitude x Efficacy and Subjective Norm x Efficacy interaction terms in order to test Hypotheses 4 and 5 . However, inclusion of the interaction terms never resulted in significant increases in variance accounted for relative to models without these terms. Thus, no support was found for Hypotheses 4 and 5.

Antinuclear behaviors. Regression analyses were conducted to predict the four behavioral indexes (signing an antinuclear petition, signing up to receive more information about an antinuclear group, signing up to receive more information on donating time to an antinuclear group, and signing up to receive more information on donating money to an antinuclear group) from specific attitude measures (attitude toward signing a petition, seeking more information, donating time, and donating money), subjective norms, and efficacy. The analyses were consistent with the findings noted in the prediction of behavioral intentions. For petition signing, F(3, 125) = 4.81, p < .01, attitude was the sole significant


predictor (p = 0 . 3 2 , ~ < .001); the variance that was accounted for equaled 10%. For information seeking, F(3, 125) = 6.48,~ < .001, attitude was also the only significant predictor (p = 0 . 3 5 , ~ < .001); the variance that was accounted for was 13%. For time donation, F(3, 125) = 3.34, p < .05, attitude was again the only significant predictor (p = 0.24, p < .05); the variance that was accounted for was 7%. The model predicting donation of money was not significant, F(3, 125) = S O , p = .68, with no significant predictors, and the variance that was accounted for was .012%. With the exception of the last model, these findings replicate the results of the regression analyses predicting behavioral intentions. Again, specific attitude indexes tend to be useful predictors, while the subjective norm and efficacy measures are not.

When the general attitude measure was substituted for the specific attitude measures, only the model predicting information seeking was significant, F(3, 125) = 7 . 1 9 , ~ < ,001, with the general attitude measure as the only significant predictor (p = 0 . 3 6 , ~ < .001). The variance that was accounted for was 15%. These results broadly replicate those presented for predicting behavioral intentions. Again, the use of a general antinuclear attitude index, rather than behavior-specific attitude measures, in the prediction models tends to be less successful. The only exception occurs with the models predicting information-seeking behavior.

For each of the four behaviors, an additional analysis was then computed that included the Attitude x Efficacy and Subjective Norm x Efficacy interaction terms. As with the behavioral intentions analyses, no significant increases in the variance that was accounted for were found.

Thus, the overall findings from the analyses predicting antinuclear actions are consistent with Hypothesis 7. In general, the measures that were significant predictors of antinuclear behavioral intentions were also significant predictors of antinuclear actions, although the variance accounted for in the behavioral models was consistently lower than in the behavioral intentions.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide new information regarding the correlates of nuclear activism and have implications for the proposed theoretical model of such activism. They also suggest directions for future research and may have some practical implications for antinuclear groups.

Antinuclear Behavioral Intentions

Intriguing from a theoretical standpoint is the failure of perceived efficacy to be predictive of behavioral intentions to get involved in antinuclear action or in the decision to actually take action. Although it is not entirely clear why this is so, a partial explanation may rest in the distinction between control and efficacy. A key


argument forming the basis for this study is that most individuals do not doubt their ability to take various forms of antinuclear action, as the mechanics of signing a petition or requesting information are not difficult. Instead, it was posited that nuclear efficacy (the belief that such actions will be effective in changing nuclear policy) was a key variable. Perhaps this case was overstated and, in fact, individuals do doubt their ability to take action in the sense of not having the time, knowledge, or resources to seek out appropriate avenues of antinuclear involvement.

Certainly other researchers have examined the effects of different types of efficacy on antinuclear activism. The problem with a direct application of their findings to this study is that the definitions of efficacy that are used often vary across studies. For example, McKenzie-Mohr et al. (1992) conducted a study in which they found that perceptions of collective control regarding antinuclear actions were far better predictors of action than were perceptions of personal control. Their measure of personal control took the form of “How much control do you feel that you alone have in averting nuclear war?’ (p. 274). The problem with analyzing the findings of this study in light of the McKenzie-Mohr et al. study is that their defini- tion of personal control seems most similar to the measure of nuclear efficacy that was used in this study. Unfortunately, although the reconceptualization of Ajzen’s (1988) theory of planned behavior that was used here posited nuclear efficacy as a predictor of both behavioral intentions and behavior, it now appears that Ajzen’s original view of self-efficacy (termed personal control here) might be more useful. When individuals do not feel capable of engaging in specific behaviors, given their time, knowledge, or other resource constraints, they may be less likely to act, in spite of their attitudes and their perceptions of facilitative subjective norms. Fur- ther research examining the variety of ways in which efficacy is defined and measured would help in clarifying these conflicting findings.

Another possible explanation for the failure of efficacy to predict behavioral intentions is a methodological one. The scale measuring efficacy was found to be of only moderate reliability. This level of reliability was not completely satisfactory, and it may have affected the predictive ability of the eficacy scale.

From a more practical standpoint, another possibility is that feelings of nuclear efficacy simply do not lead to antinuclear behavior. Instead, taking antinuclear behavior may lead to feelings of efficacy. If this is true, then perhaps efficacy is less important in motivating antinuclear behavior than is previous antinuclear experience. Efficacy may be associated with antinuclear action only for individuals who have engaged in previous antinuclear activity.

The failure of subjective norms to predict antinuclear behavioral intentions and the taking of such actions is also theoretically interesting, but more difficult to explain. One possible explanation stems from the finding that feelings of support for engaging in nuclear issues were fairly low in this sample. The possible range of scores on the subjective norms measure was 1 .O to 8 1 .O; however, the median score was just 16.25, indicating some restriction of range.

494 FOX-CARDAMONE ET AL

The comparison between those analyses involving the behavior-specific attitude measures and those utilizing the more general attitude scale were consistent with our hypothesis. Ajzen (1988) contends that specific attitudes toward enacting particular behaviors are better predictors of a given behavioral intention than are more general attitude indexes. In every case where there were data from parallel regression analyses done with the specific attitude measure and the more general attitude measure, the specific attitude regression model accounted for more variance.

Two issues temper these findings, however. First, the general attitude scale was found to have only moderate reliability. While the reason for this lack of completely satisfactory reliability is unknown, it may be a result, in part, of the inclusion of the feelings of responsibility subscale, which had a lower reliability than did any of the other scales comprising the general attitude scale. This moderate reliability of the general attitudes scale may have influenced the amount of variance accounted for in terms of predicting attitudes toward enacting specific behaviors. With a more reliable general attitudes scale, the possibility remains that general attitudes would do a better job of predicting behavioral intentions.

A second issue involves the inclusion of concern as part of the general attitude measure. While the reliability of the concern subscale was satisfactory, the overall level of concern expressed by subjects for the antinuclear issue was only a moderate one. The mean level of concern was 5.02 on a 9-point scale, with a range of 2.76 to 6.39. This lower than expected level of concern, plus the restricted range, raises the possibility that levels of concern over nuclear issues were not sufficient to trigger antinuclear behavioral intentions in this study. In their discussion of a model of stress and coping, Lazarus and Folkman ( 1984) suggest that individuals are unlikely to take any action if they do not first appraise an event as a threat. In the realm of nuclear issues, levels of concern may mediate antinuclear activism. If subjects had felt more threatened and were more concerned by nuclear weapons, they may have responded with greater indications of antinuclear behavioral intentions (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1992). Although the role of concern was not directly included in the theoretical underpinnings of this study, and is only speculative at this time, further research could explicate its role in antinuclear activism.

The issue of measurement specificity may also bear on the low utility of subjective norms and feelings of efficacy relative to the attitude indexes in predicting behavioral intentions, since the subjective norms and efficacy measures were not behavior specific. Had all three predictors been assessed at the same level of specificity, subjective norms and efficacy may have fared better. Research by Nemiroff and McKenzie-Mohr ( 1992) addresses this possibility. They collected behavior-specific efficacy measures (called tactical eficacy), as well as collective efficacy measures, and examined the ability of both to discriminate between antinuclear activists and nonactivists. Their behavior-specific measures were


successful in making that discrimination; however, their collective efficacy measure was not. Subsequent research examining the impact of measurement specificity for subjective norms would further aid in attempts to address issues of measurement specificity.

Another interesting finding with regard to the behavioral intentions data involves regression equations trying to predict future behavioral intentions with and without interaction terms. As noted in the hypotheses, although Ajzen and associates (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Schifter & Ajzen, 1985) have not found interaction terms to be particularly helpful, previous research in the nuclear domain has suggested that such terms might improve prediction. In analyses con- trasting models involving only attitudes, subjective norms, and efficacy with those involving Attitude x Efficacy and Subjective Norm x Efficacy interaction terms, the interaction terms never significantly increased the variance accounted for beyond that accounted for by the simpler models. This may have stemmed from multicollinearity. In these analyses, the interaction terms were frequently highly correlated with the main effect terms from which they were derived.

Antinidear Actions

Specific findings regarding prediction of the actual behaviors of petition signing, requesting information, donating time, or donating money paralleled those for behavioral intentions. For example, comparisons between regression analyses for individual behaviors using behavior-specific attitude measures versus the general attitude scale found that regression models using the more specific attitude scales accounted for a greater percentage of variance than did the models using the general scale. Again, this is consistent with Ajzen’s (1988) analysis of specificity versus generality of measures. One caveat is that problems in obtaining a satisfactory reliability of the general attitude scale, as mentioned previously with regard to predicting behavioral intentions, may also have limited the predictability of actual behaviors. Also, as with the behavioral intentions data, regression analyses using interaction terms did not improve upon those using attitudes, norms, and efficacy only. Finally, the attitude beta weights were again consistently larger than were those for either subjective norms or efficacy.

A final comment regarding the relationship between intentions and behaviors is of interest. Ajzen (1988) specifies a rather close relationship between intentions to engage in a specific behavior and actually engaging in that behavior. Cor- relational analyses examining this prediction found that there was a significant relationship between intention to request information and actually requesting information ( r = .29, p < .01). However, for both intention to donate time and intention to donate money, the relationships between intentions and the actual behaviors were not significant. This may have been a result of the infrequent occurrence of the donating time and money behaviors. In this study, only 12

496 FOX-CARDAMONE ET AL

people (9.2% of the sample) exhibited the time-donation and money-donation behaviors. Thus, range restriction for both of these behaviors may, i n part, account for these nonsignificant intentionbehavior correlations. Still, the limited relationship between the behavioral intentions measures and actual actions is theoretically important, and suggests the need for examination of other variables, such as past actions, in hture research in this area.

To summarize the preceding discussion, the study tested models derived from Ajzen’s ( 1988) theory of planned behavior concerning the relationship between attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived efficacy with behavioral intentions and actual behaviors. The results were not precisely as hypothesized, although they did partially support Ajzen’s theorizing in the context of antinuclear activism. Greater specificity in terms of the attitude variables generally led to better prediction of intentions and behavior. Also, the idea that expressing intentions or engaging in overt behaviors can be predicted as a hnction of attitudes, normative pressure, and efficacy was partially supported; attitudes emerged as a consistent predictor variable.

Practical Considerations

This research, while theory oriented, may be helpful in a practical way for antinuclear groups trying to recruit new members. For example, it may be to the advantage of such groups to concentrate on individuals with appropriate attitudes. A political group with a primary focus on changing others’ nuclear-related attitudes may be unrealistic. As Fiske (1987) points out, political preferences are long-standing predispositions that are not easily swayed by brief contacts with other viewpoints. Rather than trying to change attitudes, which might require too much in the way of time and resources, concentrating on getting individuals to take action who already espouse the “appropriate” attitudes might be a better strategy (Hinkle, Fox-Cardamone, & Hinkle, 1990).

In addition, the issue of nuclear war/weapons was the only issue examined here. I t was made situationally salient to research participants. It would appear to be a wise course of action for antinuclear groups to keep the issue salient in order to increase the chances of some individuals taking antinuclear actior.. Even individuals with antinuclear attitudes might need to be reminded on a periodic basis of the urgency of the issue. Given the moderate levels of concern found in this subject sample, and the possibility that this reflects a more generalized perception of the diminished threat of nuclear war, it might be wise for antinuclear groups to frequently remind their membership of the potential horrors of nuclear wadweapons. Feelings of complacency, arising from a perception that the nuclear wadweapons issue has been resolved, would seem to be an ongoing problem for antinuclear activist groups trying to maintain and supplement their membership rolls.

The findings on specificity of attitudes are also of practical value. In attempt- ing to get people involved in particular antinuclear activities, knowledge of


general attitudes toward the issue is far less useful than is knowledge of attitudes toward specific antinuclear activities. Recruiting people to participate in an antinuclear rally is more strongly facilitated by knowing something about potential participants’ sentiments about such events than by knowing their general position on the antinuclear issue. Similarly, a persuasion effort aimed at attitudes toward participation in antinuclear rallies is apt to get more people involved than one focused on the superordinate political issue. In addition, if our speculation offered earlier is supported, recruitment efforts targeted at convincing others that a particular antinuclear action is supported by others and apt to be effective is likely to have more impact than are those pitched at the general support and effectiveness of the antinuclear movement.

Finally, it is prudent to keep in mind the limitations of studying a real-world phenomenon by means of laboratory experimentation. While manipulation checks indicated that the deception used in this study appears to have been successful, and that the subjects appear to have been involved, there is always the possibility of a lack of external validity. Antinuclear activism in the real world might be considerably different from that generated in a laboratory setting. On the other hand, it is tempting to surmise that inducing college students, who have had little prior interest in nuclear issues, little experience with antinuclear protest, and only moderate levels of concern with the issue, to take modest antinuclear action is something of a triumph. Perhaps in the real world, individuals with more interest in nuclear issues, greater levels of experience with antinuclear protest, and greater levels of antinuclear concern might exhibit impressive levels of activism under the appropriate theoretical conditions, as outlined here.

References

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Atti- tudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22,453-474.

Fiske, S. T. (1987). People’s reactions to nuclear war: Implications for psycholo- gists. American Psychologist, 425,207-2 17.

Fiske, S. T., Pratto, F., & Pavelchak, M. (1983). Citizens’ images of nuclear war: Contents and consequences. Journal of Social Issues, 39( I) , 4 1-65.

Flamembaum, C. , Hunter, A., Silverstein, B., & Yatani, C. (1985, March). Demo- graphic and social psychological predictors of nuclear disarmament activism. Paper presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Fox, D. L., & Schofield, J. W. (1 989). Issue salience, perceived efficacy, and perceived risk: A study of the origins of antinuclear war activity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19,805-827.


Fox-Cardamone, D. L., & Hinkle, S. (1989, April). Correlates ofpeace activism: The peace psychology student. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Houston, TX.

Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. J. (1989, April). Predicting intergroup behavior. Social identity and reasoned action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Psychological Association meeting, Houston, TX.

Hinkle, S., Fox-Cardamone, D. L., & Hinkle, A. (1990). Forming an activist group. In R. Brown (Ed.), The groups you belong to (pp. 2034-2041). New York, NY: Marshall.

Lazarus, R. W., & Folkman, S. ( 1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

Milburn, L. W., Watanabe, P. Y., & Kramer. B. M. ( 1 986). The nature and sources of attitudes toward a nuclear freeze. Political Psycholog-v, 7, 66 1-674.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., McLoughlin, J. G., & Dyal, J. (1992). Perceived threat and control as moderators of peace activism: Implications for mobilizing the pub- lic in the pursuit of disarmament. Journal of Community and Applied Social

Nemiroff, L. S., & McKenzie-Mohr, D. (1992). Determinants and distinguishing variables of pro-disarmament behavior and responsible environmental behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personaliv, 7, 1-24.

Schifter, D. B., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 843-85 1.

Schofield, J., & Pavelchak, M. (1985. March). The determinants of antinuclear behavior. Paper presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Eastern Psycho- logical Association. Boston, MA.

Sivek, D. J., & Hungerford, H. (1990). Predictors of responsible behavior in members of three Wisconsin conservation organizations. Journal of Environ- mental Education, 21(2), 35-40.

Waldron, I., Baron, J., Frese, M., & Sabini, J. (1988). Activism against nuclear weapons build-up: Student participation in the 1984 primary campaigns. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 18, 826-836.

Wolf, S., Gregory, W. L., & Stephan, W. G. (1984). Protection motivation theory: Prediction of intentions to engage in antinuclear war behaviors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Tor- onto, Canada.

Psychology, 2.269-280.

the correlates of antinuclear activism: attitudes, subjective norms, and efficacy

Documents