A study examines links between violence and political partisanship. Following World War II, US public support for nuclear weapons declined. Over the last few years, however, nuclear weapons arsenals have been updated. In August 2019, Paul Slovic and colleagues surveyed 663 US individuals about their support for a hypothetical decision to attack Iran with nuclear weapons and about an actual decision faced by the current US President about whether to launch missiles--considered conventional weapons in this study--against Iran in response to Iran's downing of an unmanned US surveillance drone. Fifty-three percent of individuals surveyed were Democrats, whereas 47% were Republicans. Compared with Democrats, Republicans largely supported and believed in the ethicality of using either nuclear or conventional weapons to kill enemy civilians and combatants. Supporters of such policies felt socially distant from Iranians; believed that Iran's leaders were morally to blame for US-caused Iranian casualties; and tended to support domestic policies that excessively punish immigrants and criminals, protect gun owners, and restrict abortion rights. The findings suggest that understanding support for punitive action is essential to mitigating violence, according to the authors.
Article #20-01583: "Virtuous violence from the war room to death row," by Paul Slovic, C. K. Mertz, David M. Markowitz, Andrew Quist, and Daniel Västfjäll.
MEDIA CONTACT: Paul Slovic, Decision Research, Eugene, OR; tel: 541-912-8839; email: pslovic@uoregon.edu
###
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences