CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
i.JORRIES AND CONCERNS OF CONTEHPORARY ADOLESCENTS
i.JITH AN ENPHASIS ON THE \vORRY OF NUCLEAR WAR
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
Gaye A. Daniels
August 1985
The thesis of Gaye A. Daniels is approved:
California State University, Northridge
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Doctors
Ronald Doctor, Dee Shepherd-Look and Robert Dear for their
help and guidance.
I also wish to thank Dr.Jim Fleming for his time,
patience and help with the computer programs that were
invaluable to me.
Finally, I would like to pay a special thanks to my
mom, dad, and brothers for their never-ending support in
the (seemingly) endless road to my obtaining my Master's.
For with their words of encouragement I was able to endure
and happily reach my goal.
iii
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.. ........ ....... ..... ..... ......... iii
ABSTRACT . . .. . ........ .. ... ... . .............. ... . ....
1
Chapter 1 ---INTRODUCTION ........ . . . .. .... .... .. .. ..
Purpose of Study
............................ 15
Hypotheses of Study . .. . . ....... . .. . . .. ...... . .. 16
Chapter 2 ---METHOD . .. .. . . ...... ... ....... .... . . .... 19
Chapter 3 ---RESULTS .... . . . . . . .. . . .. .. ..... .. . . . . ... 27
Participants ... ... .. .. .. ...... ...... ..... .... .. 27
Twenty Worry Items ... . .. . . .. . .. . . ... . . . .. .. . . .. 28
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
v
Greatest Worries Selected From 20 Worry Items
.......... .... . . . ....... . .
Spontaneous Responses ("3 Greatest Worries") ...
The Goldenring/Doctor 3 Factors .. ..... ... . .. . . .
Chapter 4 ---DISCUSSION .. ... ... . ... . ... .......... .. .
Chapter 5 ---LIMITATIONS OF STUDY .. . .... ..... ...... .
REFERENCES . .... . .... ......... . .. ... ...... .... . . .....
APPENDIX A . . .. . . . . . .... .. ... .. . .... .... .... ...... .. .
APPENDIX B ..... .. .. . .... . ... ....... ... ... .... .... . ..
Nuclear War Questions
iv
33
36
40
47
51
54
56
61
75
•
ABSTRACT
WORRIES AND CONCERNS OF CONTEMPORARY
ADOLESCENTS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON
NUCLEAR \vAR
by
Gaye A. Daniels
The present investigation recorded and assessed the
worries and attitudes of contemporary adolescents, with an
emphasis on the issue of nuclear war.
Both objective and
subjective questions were included in the questionnaires
that were administered to a total of 1214 junior and
senior high school students from Northern and Southern
California.
The forced-choice questions pertained to
personal information along with questions requiring the
subjects to rate twenty specific worries (such as getting
cancer,
nuclear war,
and own death) on a 1-4 scale (1
being "not at all worried" to 4 being "very worried") and
then rating their top 5 worries out of the twenty worries,
while the open-ended question asked the subjects to list,
in their own words,
their "three greatest worries" in
order of intensity (1 being greatest worry).
The made-for-television program "The Day After" which
dealt explicitly with the event of a nuclear attack was
the intervention.
Data was collected on 216 subjects
v
prior to the viewing, and then proceeding the viewing.
The rankings of the three greatest worries by a sample of
998 students who were administered the questionnaire but
did not participate in either the pre-test or post-test
served as the basis for the development of worry
categories that the pre and post-test responses would
later be listed under.
Responses to the forced-choice questions that related
specifically to the issue of nuclear war interestingly
revealed that the subjects recorded significantly less
worry on the post-test than on the pre-test.
And on all
but two of these questions the subjects who saw the movie
recorded even less worry than those subjects who did not
see the movie.
Responses to the open-ended question that required
subjects to spontaneously list their three greatest
worries revealed that on the pre-test the worry of nuclear
war ranked seventh as the most intense worry (out of 33
possible categories),
while on the post-test this worry
ranked as the fifth most intense.
Categories and individual responses were then
analyzed in terms of the three Goldenring/Doctor Factors
(Factor
l= External; Factor II= Personal; Factor Ill=
Death/Harm), and resulted in the same conclusions- that
the worry of nuclear war (and its accompanying worries
such as getting cancer and death) are consistently one of
the top worries that adolescents today worry about.
vi
WORRIES AND CONCERNS OF CONTEMPORARY
ADOLESCENTS WITH AN EMPHASIS ON
NUCLEAR
\~AR
Gaye A. Daniels
California State University, Northridge
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Considering the growing concern about the issue of
nuclear war,
it is but a small wonder why very little
research has been conducted on it. Granted, it has only
been over the last decade that this issue has gained an
incredible amount of headlines and monopolized most of
the political conversation,
one by any means.
but the topic is not a new
One cannot forget the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima, Japan in 1945 during World War II,
where
75-85,000 people were killed, and an unaccountable amount
more survived (the bombing) but suffered from its
aftereffects (not only the physical deterioration but
also the psychological effects).
And it does not stop
there; maybe the actual event "goes away," but
forgotten?
How?
Through research it has even been
reported that adult survivors of catastrophes (such as
Hiroshima,
Nazi war camp, etc.) can actually transmit
various psychological effects to their children born
1
2
years later (Lifton, 1967).
"The children born years later" ••• that is the
adolescents and young adults of today.
What about the
attitudes of the contemporary adolescent concerning
nuclear war?
In 1982, President Reagan,
himself,
expressed
concern about how the fear of nuclear war is effecting
our people (New York Times, Nov.
1983).
In his address,
he recounted some very upsetting letters which were ''full
of terror'' written to him by school children telling of
their fear of a nuclear holocaust.
In September of 1983, a young sixteen year old
Oakland girl spoke at the Congressional Proceedings and
Debates of the 98th Congress and explained to the
audience when she first heard about nuclear bombs and
what exactly they meant to her.
She said there was a
television program about Hiroshima that she had viewed
about 2-3 years before (thus making her only 13-14 years
old at the time) that first made her aware of nuclear
devastation, and how "completely shocked" she felt.
"I
just couldn't believe that such a horrible bomb was
dropped on innocent people--mostly women and children."
She proceeded by saying that she could not help thinking
about the bomb "just about everyday now." She then
reported how she even thought about it when she was on
her way to camp because she kept thinking about what
would happen if a nuclear war should occur while she was
3
away from her home, her family,
and how afraid she was of
returning home from camp because ''there would be nothing
left." The teenager continued by describing her thoughts
about what it would be like if there was a warning of a
nuclear attack,
"I'd try to get my family together ••• I
don't want to be warned, I don't want to know it's about
to happen.
If it's going to happen,
right away.
I want to be killed
Being alive during or after the bomb would
be the most frightening of all.
I
think surviving would
be worse than dying ••• It scares me about my future.
Ursell Austin,
this 16 year old,
seems to report the
typical and common feelings of today's adolescents in
regard to nuclear war.
A point to be made here, however,
is that Miss Austin was at a meeting specifically
concerning the issue of nuclear threat.
She was not
questioned about her other fears or worries or if there
were any that she was more concerned with than that of
nuclear war.
Here is where the meager amount of past
research do not explain the extent and types of all
worries.
Furthermore, most of the studies conducted were
questionnaires composed of forced-choice questions or
structured interviews in which pre-arranged response
categories or nuclear related questions were asked.
The first questionnaire studies concerning the issue
of attitudes on nuclear war were conducted by
psychologist Sibylle Escalona (1965) and Milton Schwebel
(1965) in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I
4
Both Escalona and Schwebel found a great degree of fear
of war and uncertainty about the future among their
respective subjects.
Escalona found that over two-thirds
of the children she interviewed spontaneously expressed
concern about the issues such as war and peace, while
Schwebel found that 95% of the students he surveyed were
also concerned about the dangers of war, with about 44%
of this sample fully expecting one to occur.
James Croake (1969) conducted his questionnaire
study on ninth graders, aged 13-15 years old,
to
determine the number and type of fears that is peculiar
to this age-group population.
Croake employed three
separate phases to complete his study.
In Phase I, he
individually interviewed 53 students with respect to
their fears.
Their responses were compiled to compose a
questionnaire which was later administered to a Phase II
population.
Croake's main purpose in Phase II was to
determine the number and types of present, past and
future fears of subjects and to determine which fears
persist through to the future.
In Phase III, Croake
interviewed a sample of children from his Phase II
population by asking them certain questions so that he
can determine (1) what sources are perceived as the
genesis of fears (2) the reasons for individual
discrepancies between past,
present, and future fears and
(3) which fears are the most intense.
Croake found that the the most consistently held
,
5
past and future fears were political in nature (for
example, the worry of a communist take over, or the worry
of war). These also received the highest percentage of
subjects responding that they "almost always worry" about
them.
That is,
political fear was the most intense fear
as reported by all the groups.
This conclusion differed from the results of an
earlier study in which political fears in youngsters did
not emerge until they were in later adolescence, about
age sixteen (Angelino and Shedd, 1953).
The researchers
concluded that at the beginning of this age (16 years),
both political and economic fears seem to become the most
popular.
In their study,
the subjects were asked to list
the fears and worries which they believed people their
age held.
The reported fears seemed to fall under one of
ten categories: School, health,
social relations,
safety,
economic and political,
personal appearance,
personal conduct,
natural phenomena, animals, and the
supernatural.
For thirteen year olds,
school-related
fears were the most frequently mentioned, followed by
personal conduct (mistakes,
fourteen year olds,
stealing, etc.).
For
school-related fears were again the
most frequently mentioned, with political and economic
fears a distant second for males, and social relations
second for females.
For the fifteen year old males,
personal conduct and school-related fears were the most
common, while the same aged females most often mentioned
6
fear of animals.
Many years later, Doctors William Beardslee and John
Mack (1982) revealed quite contrary results to both
studies, finding that children as young as five and six
years old were expressing fears to their parents and
teachers about nuclear destruction and death, while
children six to nine years old feared the possibility of
abandonment (that they will survive, but family and
friends would be killed) in the occurrence of a nuclear
attack.
With such a paucity of empirical studies between
1963 and 1977, the American Psychiatric Association felt
the need,
in 1977, to appoint a task force to study the
psychosocial impact of nuclear advances.
headed by Beardslee and
~ack,
This committee,
hence developed a
questionnaire to assess the attitudes of children and
adolescents toward nuclear war, nuclear weapons, and
nuclear power plants.
In the Task Force's initial study,
over 1100
questionnaires were administered to children and
adolescents in the Boston, Los Angeles, and Baltimore
areas with more detailed responses received from 75
children in high schools in the Boston area.
These
questionnaires were distributed in 1978, 1979 and 1980
and included such questions as:
(1) "Hhen were you first
aHare of nuclear advances?" (2) "Hhat does the word
"nuclear" bring to mind?" (3) Do you think that you could
7
survive a nuclear attack?" (4) "Have thermonuclear
advances influenced your plans for marriage, having
children or planning for the future?" and (5) "Have
thermonuclear advances affected your way of thinking
(your vie\v of the \vorld,
time)?"
About 40% of the young people reported that they
became aware of nuclear developments before they were
twelve, while 34% of the sample believed that a nuclear
war would occur during their lifetime.
Fifty percent of
this sample expressed that their fear about this issue
had,
indeed, affected their plans about marriage and the
general future,
and how this concern invaded their
everyday thoughts and feelings.
A closer examination of the more recent research
available concerning nuclear war reveals,
conclusively,
quite
just how extensive and intense today's
child fears a nuclear war.
Gerald Bachoan et.
al (1983) conducted the only
large-scale survey to specifically address young people's
concerns of nuclear war. Questionnaires were administered
from 1975-1982 to approximately 19,000 high school
seniors from 130 public and private high schools across
the country.
To the question, "Of all the problems
facing the nation today, how often do you worry about the
chance of nuclear war?" the response of "very often" was
recorded by only 7.2% and 7.8% of the male and female
seniors,
respectively,
in 1975, but in 1982 this response
8
was recorded by 31.2% of the males and 29.6% of the
females,
demonstrating a greater than a four-fold
increase from 1975 to 1982.
There was also an increase
of 61% during this three year period of those who agreed
with the statement,
"Nuclear or biological annihilation
will probably be the fate of all mankind within my
lifetime."
High school senior Jon Klaven (1980) found much of
the same response from his sample of 950 students at
Newton High School in Newton, Massachusetts, whereby 34%
of his subjects believed a nuclear war would occur in
their lifetime. Fifty-two percent of the subjects were
unsure of such an occurrence,
but an astonishing 62%
thought the nuclear war threat was steadily increasing.
Over half of the subjects reported that the threat had
affected their thinking about the future and their sense
of time.
In October of 1982, Beardslee and Mack distributed
questionnaires to high school students across the
country, and the general consensus of when a nuclear war
would occur and the feelings about the future again
revealed just how intense the fears of today's
adolescents are.
That is, 80% of those responding felt
there would definitely be a nuclear war in the next
twenty years, while 90% reported that if such a war
occurred,
the world would not survive. Eight-one percent
said that the threat of nuclear war affected their hopes
9
for the future.
A much earlier study, which dealt with the emotional
response of parents and children to nuclear war
(Wrightsman, 1967) coincides with the 1982 Beardslee and
Mack study, whereby 31% of Wrightsman's sample of seventh
and eighth graders reported to expect a war within the
next five years,
years,
47% reported to expect a war within ten
and an overwhelming 70% reported to expect a war
within the next twenty years.
To test his hypothesis that the extent of a child's
fear about nuclear war is determined by how much his/her
parents worry about war,
the parents'
responses to the
same questionnaire were examined and compared with those
of their children.
The comparison disclosed that eleven
of the twelve children who worried "a lot" or "all the
time" had parents who expected a war to occur in the next
ten years.
Granted, a simple finding that children learn
their attitudes from their parents is not
earthshattering, as one of the major contributors to a
child's attitudes is the family in which he lives
(Campbell, 1958; Newcombe and Svehla, 1937), so such a
relationship should exist for attitudes toward war just
as they have been shown to exist for prejudices, voting
preferences, religious attitudes, etc.,
but the finding
did, nevertheless, reveal a very strong relationship
between the two.
That is,
parents who reported much
worry about war tended to have children who reported much
10
worry.
When the more detailed responses of the Beardslee
and Mack study were analyzed,
they showed how children
expressed vivid thoughts about the terror they had about
the nuclear threat,
nuclear destruction,
their own powerlessness, images of
doubt about whether they will ever
have a chance to grow up, and expressions of "live for
no\.J since there won't be a future."
To try to elicit the perceptions and responses of
teens concerning the threat of nuclear war and determine
in greater depth,
than what is possible through surveys,
how these young people deal with such an ominous threat,
a pilot study from the collaboration of psychology
student Lisa Goodman with Doctors Beardslee and Mack,
Roberta Snow was conducted (1983).
and
This study serves as
the only interview research concerning this issue.
Their findings from the in-depth interviews of the
thirty-one Boston high school students directly coincided
with all of the previous questionnaire-conducted studies;
the fear,
anger,
sadness, helplessness, and cynicism that
were disclosed before all came forth.
Interestingly
enough, all of the thirty-one adolescents interviewed,
exclaimed that the very existence of nuclear weapons
impinge on their lives on a daily basis, how it makes
them afraid everyday, and how they live for the present
as they believe nuclear annihilation is inevitable.
All of the studies mentioned thus far have utilized
Q
11
questions specific to the issue of nuclear war (i.e.,
asking direct questions about the issue), and are thereby
allowing the subjects to realize what the study they were
Because of the growing
participating in was about.
concern about experimental bias, and revealing the agenda
of the questionnaire to the subject, efforts have been
made to conduct studies in which the nuclear issue is not
directly addressed.
Dr. Scott Haas was the first to embedd the nuclear
question among a number of other fears in a questionnaire
to see where children rank it (Haas,
1983).
The nuclear
issue, once again, was listed as the first concern more
frequently than any other issue.
Doctors John Goldenring and Ronald Doctor (1984) who
embedded the nuclear question among twenty diverse issues
(including parent divorce,
getting a job, etc.),
cancer,
found that the nuclear issue ranked
second as the greatest worry,
dying.
pollution, fear of not
second only to parent
Further examination of the fears through
statistical regression revealed which fears ran together,
that is, which fears lumped together in categories.
Three different kinds of basic fear groupings were
revealed (as opposed to the ten categories found by
Angelino and Shedd):
(1).
dying,
"Fears .2.!_ Bodily Harm" -
included fears of parents
own death, being a victim of a violent crime,
being sick and crippled.
•
12
(2).
"Personal Concerns" -
grades,
parents divorce,
someone pregnant,
looking ugly,
included fears of bad
getting pregnant or getting
drug addiction, moving to a new home,
not being able to get a job, not being
liked.
(3).
"External or Environmental Concerns" -
fears of nuclear war,
included
pollution, nuclear power plant
leaks, over-population,
starvation, earthquakes, getting
cancer.
Unexpectantly,
out of all the external concerns,
only nuclear war was ranked in the top five worries of
the subjects,
thus making nuclear war qualitatively
different from all other concerns.
The reason why this
finding surprised its researchers is because the
consensus of experts and past studies is that none of the
external or environmental concerns should be highly
significant for teens who are supposedly self-absorbed
with peer group status and body image.
When the subjects were asked some specific questions
regarding nuclear war (in the second half of the
questionnaire) to see what effect this worry actually
has,
it was revealed that it was a very significant
concern among the teens with at least one-third of them
listing it as one of their top three concerns, and 10%
considering it a greater worry than their own parents'
death.
Fifty-eight percent of the teens claimed that
they were "worried" or "very worried" about it,
and when
13
asked how much they think about nuclear war,
56.7%
answered "a few times" with, again, about one-third
answering "often.
11
Answers to the question of "\.Jill a
nuclear war occur in your lifetime?" 42% replied
"probably yes," 9% replied "definitely yes," and about
5-10% replied they did not think that a war could be
prevented.
The results of this study further confirm just how
much despair today's children feel in regard to the issue
of nuclear war.
All of these studies indicate the vast awareness
about nuclear war by children of all ages; the sense of
fearfulness,
their future,
skepticism,
and pessimism they feel toward
and the sense of bewilderment they have
about the adult world failing them.
Escalona (1982) states that the healthy development
of a child's personality is in grave danger given that
the child experiences these feelings of misgivings about
his/her safety in the world,
and trust in adults to
create a safe and protective world for him/her.
The perception of adult models is crucial to the
adolescent who is entering the most critical
developmental stage of identity formation.
This
perception is so utterly important to the normal growth
of a child's maturity.
It is imperative that when a
child is faced with a threatening situation he/she can
confidently rely on adults to demonstrate adaptive coping
14
skills while pondering with solutions to the problem.
For without this adult demonstration there is a risk that
adolescents will opt for more maladaptive behaviors in
coping with such dilemmas as the nuclear peril.
To best summarize all the above cited research is to
note the work of Dr. Jay Lifton (1983) where he claims
there are five psychological areas involving children:
(1).
The Sense of Futurelessness-- How young people
doubt they will be able to live out their full lives.
( 2) •
Double Life-- Where,
on one hand,
the young people
go about their everyday activities (school, family
situations, preparations for adulthood),
but on the other
hand,
they express the fearful sense that all this is a
sham,
that they are actually preparing for nothingness,
that there will,
(3).
indeed,
be no adult existence.
Generational Problems Already Formidable Are
I n t en s i f i e d i n Ve r y S p e c i f i c \.Jay s-- Ho '" , ami d s t
a 11 the
talk of "national security" the young people still
experience a considerable threat to family security.
That is, how parents have the fundamental responsibility
of seeing their children safely into adulthood but feel
themselves highly uncertain about their capacity to carry
out this responsibility,
whereby the children sense this
parental doubt and associate it with an overall inability
of the adult world to guarantee their safety.
This
generates an abundance of resentment on the part of the
young toward their parents'
generation for its legacy of
15
threat and futurelessness.
(4).
The Nuclear Threat Becomes Part 2.!_ the Larger
Threat Posed
~
War and Violence to Our Children and to
the Rest as Well-- How young people have psychological
effects transmitted from their parents who experienced
catastrophes years earlier.
Or how children were
experiencing the same catagtrophe but were too young to
remember the even (Hiroshima children of 1962), now
express fear and dread, and place themselves in accounts
of the event they later heard about, and how,
importantly,
even more
they are painfully aware of the potentially
lethal aftereffects of radiation to which they knew
themselves to be greatly susceptible.
( 5) •
What Can We Do
-------
About These Threat to Children and
Zspecially The Nuclear Threat?-- SIIARE TilE KNOHLEDGE!!
There is psychological value as well as intellectual and
moral value in systematically exposing children to
disturbing issues such as the Nazi Holocaust and our
present nuclear threat---the more a child knows about the
various dimensions of such ominous issues, the more
poised and less overwhelmed he/she is, and the more able
to examine and act maturely on these issues.
Purpose of study
In my thesis I will further examine what today's
adolescents worry about,
particularly regarding their
attitudes concerning nuclear war and the effects on these
16
attitudes that their viewing the film "The Day After"
had.
This will be done in three phases:
examine the objective data.
That is,
PHASE I:
I will
I will examine the
differences in the responses that were obtained from the
pre-test and post-test and then the responses between
those subjects who did not view the movie and those who
did on:
(l)their ratings of 20 specific worry items and
(2)their top 5 worries out of these 20 worry items.
PHASE II: I will develop a category system of
contemporary worries that were spontaneously recorded
from a sample of 998 junior and senior high school
students.
PHASE III:
I will examine the spontaneous
responses from both the pre-test and post-test "Day
After" viewers and nonviewers by listing these responses
under the categories developed during Phase II.
This
examination will allow me to (1) see the impact of the
movie on nuclear and other worries (2) see if any shifts
occur between the pre and post viewing of the film (time
effect) and (3) determine the kinds of worries
adolescents today experience in comparison with other
life concerns.
fu.
hypotheses
£f.
this study
~ ~
(1) As a result of viewing the movie,
follo\,rs:
the spontaneous
responses and the responses to the objective questions
would change in the direction of being more worried.
The
reason the subjects should feel more worried is that the
movie (with its explicit depiction of property
17
destruction and death) would make them (clearly) more
aware of the potential devastation that a nuclear war
would create.
(2) The relationship between the spontaneous responses
and the responses to the objective questions would be
highly correlated.
That is,
(l)they would both elicit
more worry on the post-test than on the pre-test and
(2)the worry items that prove to be the most intense
(subjects responding that they are "very worried" about
them) would coincide with the subjects responding that
those same worry items are one of their three greatest
worries.
The practice of using a film as the intervention in
a research study is not novel, nor is having the movie
pertain to nuclear war (Grandberg, D.
& Faye, N. 1971).
The researchers use of showing the film,
"Hiroshima-Nagasaki: 1945" to 113 college students
revealed an increase in anxiety regarding nuclear war, a
decrease in desire to survive a nuclear war (the
percentage who thought they would survive was virtually
unchanged, but the percentage who wanted to survive
decreased substantially), a raise in the provocation
threshold (i.e.,
following the movie,
the subjects would
require a greater provocation before being willing to
favor the use of nuclear weapons), and a lowering of the
maximum tolerable casualty threshold.
(the movie),
Their intervention
therefore, served as a sensitizer, raising
18
the attitudinal threshold for nuclear war, which is
precisely what I
anticipate to result from using the film
"The Day After" as my intervention.
~1
•
Chapter 2
NETHOD
Subjects and Procedure
One thousand two-hundred fourteen
junior and senior
high school students, 11-19 years old,
from Los Angeles,
the San Fernando Valley, and San Jose areas participated
in some aspect of this study.
Nine hundred ninety-eight
students from this sample (from six different schools)
were administered a questionnaire in their own classrooms
during the regular school day by an adult who read
instructions,
answered any questions and passed out and
collected the completed forms.
Administration of the
questionnaire was accomplished within one day (except two
schools where it took two days) in order to minimize
communication among students that might affect the
results.
The spontaneous responses from this sample were
used for development of categories and to establish
normative levels within categories.
The remaining 216 students (from two schools, one in
Northern California the other from Southern California)
participated in the pre and post phases of this study receiving the same questionnaire under the same directions
as the 998 students.
This latter sample were the
experimental subjects used to test the effects of viewing
"The Day After" film.
The format of the questionnaire used as an assessment
instrument consisted of an instruction sheet (that was
19
20
read to the subjects in the classroom by the adult
administrator) and two distinct subsections.
The first
section asked for background information on the subject
and included questions asking for the subject's
nationality and parents' educational and working status.
Questions also asked about how much fear, worry or
happiness the subjects generally feel,
themselves,
how they feel about
and how well they believe themselves to fit in
with other teenagers (See Appendix A).
Following these
demographic and personal questions the subjects were asked
to respond to an open-ended question which asked the
subjects to list their "three greatest worries" in order
of intensity (1 being their "greatest worry") and write
their responses in their own words on the blank spaces
provided for them.
Students were then asked to rate the
intensity of twenty worry items (such as "getting cancer,"
"looking ugly," "nuclear war," and "moving") on a 1-4
scale (1 being "not at all worried" to 4 being "very much
worried").
These items had been nominated by a team of
psychologists, child psychologists and psychiatrists.
Once these ratings of the twenty items were completed, the
subjects were then asked to identify, in order,
their top
five worries out of these twenty items just rated.
Section two consisted of several questions specific
to the subjects' attitudes on the threat of nuclear war
(See Appendix A).
Questions such as what age the subject
was when he/she first heard about nuclear bombs, does
21
he/she think survival is possible, and can a nuclear war
between the US and Russia be prevented.
This constituted
the last page of the pre-test questionnaire.
The
post-test questionnaire had one more page of questions
that first asked the subjects whether they viewed the
movie "The Day After" or not;
portion of it- why;
if they only viewed a
if they did not see any of it- why;
with whom they viewed it with; and an open-ended question
asking how the movie made them feel (Appendix A).
The instructions that were read to the subjects
emphasized that this was NOT a test, so there were no
right or wrong answers,
and that their responses were
confidential and would not be seen by teachers,
classmates,
parents or school personnel.
confidentiality,
friends,
To insure
the subjects were instructed not to write
their names on the questionnaire.
They were asked twice
to try and answer all questions in the questionnaire and
to answer them in the order of which they were presented
and not to go back and change any answers, even if a later
question makes them think of a new answer.
One purpose
for this last procedure was to assure that their responses
to the first section would be unaffected by the very
specific and topical questions asked in the second
section.
Another purpose for this procedure was to assure
that the subjects would not know the main interest of the
study until they had completed one-half of the
questionnaire.
The test,
thereby, allows an unbiased
22
comparison to be made between nuclear worries and other
concerns.
The results of the questionnaire responses,
spontaneous responses,
sans the
of the 998 subjects, have been
reported elsewhere (Goldenring, J.
In this study, however,
& Doctor,
R.,
1984).
the spontaneous responses of
subjects (not reported) about their three greatest worries
were examined and clustered in order to develop a category
system that could be used as a normative system for
comparison of pre and post data from the showing of "The
Day After."
A list of thirty-three categories were developed from
examining these spontaneous responses.
The method used to
develop these thirty-three categories was to first group
similar responses and then label the cluster with a
representative name.
This compilization served as the
list of categories that the spontaneous responses of the
pre and post-test sample were compared to.
The word "worry" was deliberately used rather than
"fear" because to worry about something is a more
cognitive response and an objective form of fear rating,
whereas to fear something is a more subjective response
and is usually a bodily response.
Six weeks following the administration of the
questionnaire to the 998 students, the questionnaire was
administered to 216 same aged and school level children
(as the 998) in and about the same areas of California.
23
This administration was done prior to the airing of the
television movie "The Day After." This movie dealt quite
explicitly, dramatically, and vividly with the topic of
nuclear war.
In fact,
i t was not too much different than
the film "Hiroshima-Nagasaki: 1945" where it began by
showing and describing the bombings, and then tracing the
effects on life and property and finally,
but gradually,
getting more gruesome as the film focused its attention on
the survivors: including sensitive, moving scenes of
people suffering,
severely burned children,
limbs becoming
detached from its owner (such as eyes, arms,
The movie,
legs), etc.
therefore, made something that is ordinarily
seen as an abstraction -
VERY concrete,
simply by
sensitizing the subjects to the victims and potential
victims of nuclear war.
Two to three days following the viewing of this
factual depicted movie, the questionnaire was
re-administered to another.
Three weeks following this
date a third administration of the questionnaire was
given.
My study thus employed a Two-Group Pretest-Posttest
Design to gather information on contemporary adolescents'
attitudes and worries (with an emphasis on nuclear war).
The two groups were (l) Experimental Group: Subjects who
viewed the movie and (2) Control Group: Subjects who did
not view the movie.
The Independent Variable was the
viewing of the television movie "The Day After" while the
24
Dependent Variables were (1) intensity responses to
objective, forced-choice twenty worry items -
one of which
was nuclear war (2) responses to specific questions on
nuclear war (3) examination of the spontaneous worry
responses of subjects to the open-ended question and (4)
the comparison between the spontaneous responses and the
objective responses.
The pre-test was administered to 216 subjects one
week prior to the airing of the movie,
and the post-test
was administered to the same 216 subjects approximately
one week following the airing of the movie.
The
structure/purpose of the questionnaire was to assess
attitudes of today's adolescents on nuclear war, where the
first half of the questionnaire was a measure of the
different kinds of worries adolescents have.
The forced-choice questions were analyzed by
difference scores (post-test score minus pre-test score)
while the spontaneous responses were analyzed by first
grouping each response into one of the 33 worry categories
(some of these spontaneous responses were multiple in
nature,
however,
for example, a subject listing both
"money for college" and "earthquakes" as his/her greatest
worry; wherever such ambiguity arose, those responses were
listed in both pertinent categories (there were SO such
cases) or in all three categories (4 cases)).
Each
categorization was then counted as a single response.
The categories (and some individual responses) were
25
then grouped into the three Goldenring/Doctor Factors
(Factor 1= External; Factor 2= Personal; Factor 3=
Death/Harm).
The intensity of the adolescents' worries were
examined by computing an "intensity rating" (IR) for each
category.
This was done as follows:
For each category,
the frequency of responses level (ranking) (1= greatest
worry,
2= second greatest worry, 3= third greatest worry)
were multiplied by its ranking (1,2,3),
summed up, and
then divided by the total relative frequency
• For
example, if ten subjects spontaneously listed "Death" as
their greatest worry,
20 listed "Death" as their second
greatest worry, and 30 listed "Death" as their third
greatest worry,
the intensity rating for the category
"DEATH" would be calculated as follows:
10 X 1 = 10
20
X
2 = 40
30
X
3 = 90
60
140
140 : 60 = 2.33
(It must be mentioned, however,
that this method of
tabulation (multiplying by 1,2 or 3) creates a slight
limitation to the generalization possibilities of the
0 .
26
results.
The reason being that if another investigator
decided to use different numbers for the multiplying (say
10, 20 and 30 as opposed to 1, 2 and 3 which were used for
this study) the intensity rating of the categories would
result in being much different than the ones that were
obtained in this study.
Also,
because these rankings were
reported on a non-equal interval ratio scale, for
statistical purposes the 1,2,3 rankings were treated as
equal intervals (even though subjectively it may not be).
Chapter 3
RESULTS
The demographic information for the sample of 998
students was reported in another article (Goldenring, J.
& Doctor,
R., 1984), but to summarize, the sample was
approximately composed of 47.9% white teens, 15.1% black
teens, 11.5% Hispanic teens, and 17.3% Asian teens.
The
sample was thus representative of suburban populations in
California.
The demographic information for the students
who participated in this study is as follows:
Participants
The sample of 216 students who participated in this
study was composed of 56.5% white teens,
4.6% black
teens, 9.7% Hispanic teens, and 16.2% Asian teens.
A
fairly equal distribution of male (48.1%) and female
(49.5%) students participated.
Host of the students were
in the eighth grade (37.0%) with the remaining grades
fairly equivalent in enrollment:
grade,
22.7% in the twelfth
20.3% in the ninth grade, and 19.4% in the
eleventh grade (no tenth graders participated).
Responses concerning educational level of the
mothers and fathers (or male and female heads of
households) yielded the following information: About 21%
of the fathers and 35% of the mothers graduated from high
school; an additional 21.3% of the fathers and 23.6% of
the mothers attended some college and another 39% and 25%
of the fathers and mothers,
respectively, graduated from
27
28
college.
Fourteen and four tenths percent of the fathers
and 8.8% of the mothers attended post graduate schools.
This data indicate that the family from which the
subjects belong are educationally sound.
Information regarding the employment status for both
male and female parents was also requested from the
subjects.
Their responses revealed that almost 90% of
the fathers and over 70% of the mothers were employed,
with 49.5% of the fathers employed in a "professional"
line of work.
Almost 31% of the mothers were said to be
"professional" followed by 23.1% of them working in
clerical or sales jobs.
Insert Table 1 about here
These distributions reveal that this study's sample
appears to be representative of the ethnic and economic
profile which is characteristic of the State of
California.
The sample is not composed of extremely
poor, extremely intelligent,
or "extremely white"
adolescents.
TWENTY WORRY ITEMS
To examine the comparison of the twenty worry items
between the pre-test and post-test responses,
difference
scores (post-test minus pre-test) were used.
Table 2
which displays the mean difference scores for each of the
29
twenty worry items,
given the condition of movie or no
movie, readily reveals that not only did the subjects
record less worry on their post-test than on their
pre-test,
but on the majority of the items,
the subjects
who viewed the movie showed even LESS worry than those
subjects who did not view the movie.
And even though no
overall main effect for movie was found (the
likelihood-ratio or Wilk's Lambda statistic
this multivariate test,
=
.877.
For
the Lambda statistic has an exact
conversion to an F statistic with numerator df=20,
denominator df=l35. The right tailed F test rejects Ho if
E >
F,20,135 (£.05,20,135
=
1.77; F.Ol,20,135 = 2.27),
thus IIo is not rejected for the effect of movie),
the
fact that the post-tests generated less worry than the
pre-tests is interesting and much worth noting!
Insert Table 2 about here
Isolating only those worry items that are related to
the issue of nuclear war; namely,
"getting cancer,"
"nuclear war," "parent dying," "nuclear power plants
leaking," and "own death," it was again found that the
subjects recorded less worry on the post-test than on the
pre-test, and for all these nuclear worry items, with the
exception of "parent dying," the subjects \vho viewed the
movie,
again showed to worry less than those subjects who
did not view the movie.
That is,
the worry for items
30
pertaining to the issue of nuclear war changed in the
same direction as the other objective items not
pertaining to nuclear war.
These findings indicate that a possible
desensitization effect was involved in which any potency
the movie may have had was reduced or nullified by
adaptation and desensitization.(Hayes, 1983).
Even the
control group showed less worry on the post-test than on
the pre-test, which demonstrates that not only viewing
the movie,
itself, may have caused a desensitization
effect but possibly the media attention surrounding it
did.
That is,
the atmosphere and "hype" leading up to
the actual airing of the film may have been sufficient to
sensitize the subjects and subsequently their worry of
nuclear war.
Another factor that could be responsible for the
subjects'
responding to be less worried on the post-test
is a confounding testing effect.
That is,
the subjects
knew what the purpose of the study was by the time they
answered the second questionnaire so,
unknown,
for reasons
they could have just decided not to reveal their
true degree/intensity of their worry concerning nuclear
war.
The overall frequencies and means for each of the
twenty worry items from both the pre-test and post-test
(without regards to whether the movie was seen or not) is
presented in Table 3.
The percentage of subjects who
31
rated the corresponding items a "4" (very worried) is
also included (column 4).
Insert Table 3 about here
These intensity values provide a meaningful way of
comparing the various means of students worry.
intense worry of the twenty worry items,
The most
the worry of
parent dying did not change from pre-test to post-test.
That is,
(ipre
=
"parents dying" proved to be the most intense
3.09, ipost
nuclear war (Xpre
grades"
(ipre
=
=
=
2.82) followed by the worry of
2.85, Xpost
2.70, Xpost
=
=
2.55) and "getting bad
2.46).
On the pre-test,
about 43% of the students rated "parents dying" as
s om e t hi n g t he y we r e " v e r y '" o r r i e J " a b o u t , b u t
on the
post-test only 34% of these students rated this worry
that intense.
Similarly,
33.3% of the subjects on the
pre-test and 23.6% on the post-test reported to be "very
worried" about nuclear \var.
Furthermore,
this concern of nuclear war seems to
cluster with the other worry items that relate to
sickness or death.
That is,
on both the pre-test and
post-test the top five most intense worries,
in order,
were "parent dying," "nuclear war," "getting bad grades,"
"becoming sick or crippled," and "own death."
(The
post-test results inter-changed the worry of "becoming
sick or crippled" with the worry of "own death").
32
Overall, the difference between the pre-test
responses and post-test responses was significant (Wilks
Lambda statistic
Ho if £.05,20,135
=
.645; the right-tailed F test rejects
>
1.77; obtained F.Ol,20,135
=
2.77).
Table 4 presents the univariate analysis of the
difference between the means for each of the twenty worry
items.
Insert Table 4 about here
The majority of these twenty items not only revealed a
significant difference (R <.01) between the pre and
post-test responses,
but also revealed a further
confirmation that the subjects showed less worry at the
time of the post-test than at the time of the pre-test.
A follow-up statistical analysis was performed using
confidence intervals ("Hominal
95~~
11
Planned Comparison
Confidence Intervals, and Simultaneous Confidence
Intervals) to isolate the dependent variables.
Only
variables "earthquakes" and "getting hooked on drugs 11
were found NOT to be significant.
Thus, all other
variables led to the overall multivariate significance.
Insert Table 5 about here
The interaction between the effects of movie and
difference (pre to post) proved to be non-significant
(Wilks Lambda Statistic
=
.862;
the right-tailed F test
33
rejects Ho if £.05,20,135
>
1.77; £.01,20,135
=
2.27)
indicating that which worry scores decreased
significantly in intensity they did not decrease
differentially in movie and non-movie subjects.
GREATEST WORRIES SELECTED FROM 20 WORRY ITEMS
-----
After the subjects rated their degree of worry for
each of the twenty worry items provided to them,
they
were asked to identify their five greatest worries,
of the twenty,
worry).
out
in rank order ("1" being their greatest
This was done to determine whether a second
method of assessing the degree of young people's concern
would result in the same findings and conclusions as the
previous method used.
This method differs from the
intensity ratings method above, as analyzing the ranking
forces a comparison AMONG the various items.
The results of these comparisons produced a very
similar pattern to that of the intensity ratings.
Insert Table 6 about here
That is,
the worry of "parents dying" was again the
greatest (1st ranked) worry on both the pre-test and
post-test with 27.3% of the subjects on the pre-test and
26.4% of the subjects on the post-test ranking it first,
and 52.8% (pre) and 54.7% (post) ranking it in the first
three.
The worry of nuclear war was the
secon~
greatest
34
worry with 19.9% of the subjects on the pre-test and
23.6% of the subjects on the post-test ranking it as
their first greatest worry, where 38.8% (pre) and 48.6%
(post) ranked it at least as one of their top 3 worries.
The worry of "getting bad grades" again resulted in being
the third greatest worry with 9.3% of the subjects on the
pre-test and 11.6% of the subjects on the post-test
ranking it first,
with 27.3% (pre) and 28.8% (post)
ranking the worry among their top three.
three worries,
After these
there was a large drop in percentages with
a fairly equal distribution among the remaining items.
Examining the worry concerns using this method,
the
worry of nuclear war comparatively ranks as one of the
top three concerns whether the subjects rated the worry
on the pre-test (38.8%) or the post-test (48.6%) with
about 20% of the subjects on the pre-test and almost 25%
of the subjects on the post-test claiming it as absolute
greatest worry.
So,
it is quite possible that the method of
assessment affected the results because here,
using a
ranking method, we see an INCREASE rather than a decrease
in concern about nuclear war.
Alas, it is quite evident that the worry of nuclear
war is undeniably a great concern for our young
adolescents of today.
Because the interest of this study is on the
attitudes toward nuclear war,
only those worry items
35
which are believed to be specifically related to the
nuclear issue were examined more closely.
That is,
only
the worry of "getting cancer," "nuclear war," "parent
dying," "nuclear power plants leaking," and "own death"
were looked at in more detail.
Insert Table 7 about here
Out of these five nuclear war related worries,
the
worry of "parent dying" proved to be the greatest worry
on both the pre and post-test,
followed by the worry of
"nuclear war," "own death," "getting cancer," and
"nuclear po·wer plants leaking."
The pre and post-test frequencies (for just the top
three ratings) were examined for all five nuclear related
worries to determine if there were any changes pre to
post and the degree (magnitude) of these changes.
results were quite interesting: All of the worries,
The
with
the exception of "nuclear war" showed virtually NO
change;
--tlpre
the worry of nuclear war revealed a grand change
=
84,
Npost
=
105, an increase of 21 subjects!
So as the total pre-post frequencies revealed that
"getting cancer" and "nuclear war" were the top tHo
greatest Horries,
the difference in frequencies (pre to
post) revealed that only "nuclear war" recorded any
change (and rather a sizeable one) from pre-test to
post-test.
36
NUCLEAR ivAR QUESTIONS
A variety of questions were asked to ascertain
information about the age when the subjects first heard
about nuclear bombs,
war,
if they ever thought about a nuclear
if they discuss the issue with their parents,
survivability of such an event,
and numerous other
pertinent questions regarding the issue.
Table 8
presents the responses to these questions from both the
pre-test and post-test.
The majority of the subjects first heard about
nuclear bombs around their present age (8-13 years old)
with an overwhelming of them responding that they have
t hough t
i f
n0 t
a bo ut
nuc 1ea r
" 0 f t en "
( 32 • 4
\1
ar at
1ea s t
" a f e \·l t i me s "
( 57 . 9
:n
:n .
Insert Table 8 about here
Almost 60% of the subjects admitted to talking to their
Parents about it.
These responses seem to confirm the
hypothesizing that (!)children are learning about the
nuclear issue at a very young age and (2)they think about
it often enough to want to engage in parental discussions
about the issue.
Examining the responses to the questions regarding
survivability,
prevention,
etc.,
it seems that the data
offer some reasoning to the results of the previously
37
analyzed data (the twenty worry items and the top 5
Specifically,
worries).
the responses to the question
whether a nuclear war between the US and Russia would
occur during the subject's lifetime, moved in the
direction of "No," as did the responses to the question
of whether the subject would survive such a war, would
our country survive one,
prevented.
and could such a war be
Although the results to the questions
concerning the subjects'
survivability of a nuclear war
and the possibility of preventing a nuclear war proved to
be non-significant (X~= 3.31 and ~= 3.52,
X.;)..l,.05
>
respectively,
3.84) while the results to the question
concerning our country's survivability proved to be
significant
CXJ..=
6.59, 1£~1,.05
>
3.84),
this uniform
uovement in the "No" direction indicates either the
subjects are experiencing some type of numbing (because
they reported less worry on the post-test than on the
pre-test,
in regard to the 20 specific worry items),
maybe they feel
catastrophic,
or
they need not worry about such a
devastating event that they believe is
incapable of being survived through,
in no way
preventable, and definitely inevitable to occur.
Interestingly,
subject,
the question asking whether the
him/herself,
nuclear war,
can do anything to prevent a
the responses were virtually unchanged from
pre-test to post-test.
But the degree to which their
thoughts about nuclear war has affected their future
38
plans revealed a slight change, a change in the direction
of "Unsure" to "Somewhat": 10.6% of the subjects on the
pre-test responded to be "Unsure" to 15.7% on the
post-test to 13.9% responding "Somewhat" on the pre-test
to over 18% on the post-test CX~= .1263, X~l,.05
3.84).
>
A somewhat larger change was found in the
direction from "Unsure" (10.6% pre, 15.7% post) to "Very
(X~ = 3 • 5 9 , X~ 1 , • 0 5
1i t t 1e"
( 3 3 . 3 % p r e t o 2 6 • 9% p o s t )
3.84).
The response of "Uo" remained unchanged at
36.6%.
More specific to the question of future plans
>
(general) is the question of future plans with regard to
marriage and children; at which the responses resembled
those of future plans (general),
that is, a slight change
was found for both the direction of "Unsure" to
":~o."
"Sorae\vhat" and "Unsure" to
llhether the thoughts
about nuclear war made the subjects want to live only for
today and forget about the future (as most of the
literature on adolescents attitudes toward nuclear war
claim they do),
the responses maintained somewhat of an
even jump with 9.7% of the subjects on the pre-test
reporting they felt "Unsure" to
11.11~
of them claiming
unsurety on the post-test to 6.9%(pre) reporting they
II
Frequently" feel
1,.05
>
that way to
10.6~~
(
post)
CX
e;l...
=.4329,
";;t
~
3.84) and 19.0% (pre) claiming "No, not very
11
.c
OLten
to 21
°
c;
.u~
(
post )
(
_X~
=
0 , !;1..1,.05
>
3.84).
An interesting change was found when analyzing the
responses of how the subjects felt about the amount of
39
information they have received in school concerning the
issue of nuclear war.
The biggest jump was revealed in
the response of "Hot at all enough," where 18.1% of the
subjects responded this way on the pre-test to 25% of the
subjects responding this way on the post-test.
In spite of the fact that these results proved to be
non-significant,
they nevertheless indicate that the
subjects are becoming more and more aware of the nuclear
issue everyday,
but feel their schools are not keeping
them as well informed as they should be or would like to
be.
Five of the nuclear war questions were examined in
terms of whether the subjects viewed the movie or not.
Difference scores were again used as the analysis to
deteroine the direction of pre-test to post-test changes
in responses.
Although none of the differences were significant
(R<.OS), it is still very interesting to see the
direction of the responses from the pre-test to the
post-test.
Responses to four of the five questions
reflected a movement in the direction of the "No"
position from the pre-test to post-test,
with a more
intense movement (in the same direction) found for those
subjects who viewed the movie.
40
Insert Table 9 about here
SPONTANEOUS RESPONSES
( "]_ GREATEST vJORRIES")
To further examine what today's adolescents worry
about,
responses to the question asking theQ to list,
their own words,
examined.
in
their "three greatest worries" were
This question involving spontaneous responses
was purposely placed in the questionnaire immediately
following the demographic questions and preceding the
ratings of the twenty worry items so that only the
subjects'
free and open responses regarding their worries
would be obtained.
It was also purposely ordered in this
format so that the subjects would not be provided with
any hints or given any direction of what to think about
or what the purpose of the study they were participating
in was about.
The first chance they would be able to
offer any guesses as to the main interest of this study
would be when they were rating the twenty worry items;
and even THEN whether they could actually recognize the
purpose of the study (being attitudes on nuclear war) is
quite doubtful (as the five specific nuclear related
worry items were embedded in the whole list of the 20
worry items).
The only time the subjects could truly
identify the intention of the study was,
therefore,
when
they had already completed one-half of the questionnaire
41
and was responding to the questions asking specifics
about nuclear war (for example,
the age they first heard
of a nuclear or atomic bomb).
In order to be able to compile and organize these
spontaneous responses, a category system was developed
from examining the spontaneous responses of the 998
students questioned prior to the 216 pre-post subjects.
These 998 subjects are referred to as the "normative"
sample as they were given no treatment intervention.
The
list of categories that were developed from the normative
sample's spontaneous responses are listed in Table 10.
Thirty-three separate categories, some having a subset of
their own, were identified.
Insert Table 10 about here
As most of these categories are self-explanatory no
further explanation need be mentioned. However,
for the
categories that are somewhat abstract and not so
definitive as to the type of responses they involve, a
few actual responses for each of these categories are
listed in Table 11 in order to provide a clearer
picture.
Insert Table 11 about here
To be able to compare the pre-test responses with
those of the post-test, a comparison had to first be made
42
between the responses from the pre-test and normative
sample.
This was to make sure that the pre-test
responses are representative as a "normative-control
group" to which the post-test group can be justly
compared (Note,
the spontaneous responses were analyzed
in only terms of pre-test versus post-test and not
experimental (movie) versus control (no-movie)).
This analysis between the pre-test and normative
samples was performed by first condensing the
thirty-three categories into just eleven categories,
Insert Table 12 about here
and then tabulating only the top ON2 (greatest) worry of
each category.
Table 13 presents the tabulation of the greatest
worries (all 3) for each of the 33 categories, their
intensity ratings,
and the percentage of subjects
responding to the corresponding categories for the
normative sample.
Insert Table 13 about here
The totals of how many subjects listed each
corresponding category as their FIRST greatest worry (for
the pre-test,
post-test,
presented in Table 13.
their entirety (i.e.,
and in the normative sample) is
The categories were tabulated in
no subgroups were tabulated
43
separately).
Insert Table 14 about here
~
Individual X tests were performed for the two
comparisons (normative to pre, and pre to post):
The
multinomial distribution over the eleven categories was
not significantly different for either the pre-test to
·
·
normat1ve
group compar1son
c_xj...=
17 . 1 o ; _.
x.._ o5 , 1 o
" oo ) ,
= 2 J.
or for the pre-test to post-test group comparison (X~=
5.84; X~.05,11 = 26.30).
Thus,
the two groups (pre and
normative) are said to be identical and therefore provide
an accurate comparison between the pre-test and post-test
responses.
After the individual responses were categorized, an
intensity rating (IR) was created for each category
(basically, within each response category responses for
all subjects were weighted by rank).
include a display of this ranking,
Tables 15 and 16
in order of both
actual frequency (number of subjects) and intensity, for
each category (Table 15 presents the pre-test's totals
and rankings, Table 16 presents the post-test's totals
and rankings).
Insert Tables 15 and 16 about here
To determine the
ran~ings
of the categories,
those
categories with subsets were calculated as "wholes"
44
(i.e.,
their subsets were summed).
This was done for all
33 categories with the exception of those categories that
specifically relate to the nuclear war issue,
la-Own death,
general,
and lb-Family death.
namely,
Category llf
(Nuclear war) and category 15 (War non-specific) were
calculated as ONE category (and categories with less than
ten total responses were not included in the rankings).
As one can see,
the top five ranking categories are
Table 17
similar for both the pre-test and post-test.
presents the comparison of this ranking.
Looking first at the rankings based on actual
frequency,
the worry of death was ranked first as the
greatest worry out of all thirty-three categories on both
"
]'
the pre anc post test ( 2pre
= o,- 0 ; ~post
pre-test,
however,
=
On the
the worry of nuclear war (and war)
yielded a ranking of third greatest worry
on the post-test,
59).
(1
=50),
but
this worry ranked as the second
greatest worry over all (N =58).
Insert Table 17 about here
The only difference in the categories represented in
the pre-test versus post-test ranking of the top five
worries (in terms of actual frequency)
is that the worry
of "Family situations/problems/concerns" was found
ranked as one of the top 5 worries on the pre-test,
was not on the post-test;
to be
but
the Horry of "School (future),
11
~1
45
rather,
was found to be one of the top 5 worries.
Examining the ranking of the five greatest worries
in terms of their intensity ratings,
the worry of death
was again the greatest worry overall (Intensity Rating
pre (IRpre) = 1.72, IRpost = 1.95).
war, again,
The worry of nuclear
increased in the ranking from pre-test to
post-test (from being the 7th greatest worry on the
pre-test to being the 5th greatest worry on the
post-test).
The only discrepancy in the categories represented
in this pre versus post-test ranking of the top five
worries is that the worry of "School" (both present and
future) was found to be included in the ranking for the
pre-test,
but was not on the post-test;
the worry of
"Boy-/Girl-friend" issues, and the Horry of nuclear war,
rather, were ranked (as 3rd and 5th,
respectively).
Although the differences in frequency and intensity
rating are quite interesting,
the Chi-Square analysis
that was performed on the pre-post responses of those
worry categories that were represented on both the
pre-test and post-test listings for the top five worries
(namely,
categories 1,
non-sign i fica n t ,
9,
14/15, 16, 20,
21) proved to be
h o \v ever ( !;.. = 5 • 54 , X~ 5 , 1 0 5
>
11 • 0 7 ) •
These results, which were obtained by analyzing the
data in terms of both actual frequency and intensity
rating,
fro~
indicate an increase in the worry of nuclear war
pre-test to post-test, and further proclaim that the
•
46
worry of nuclear war (and death) are CONSISTENTLY ranked
as one of the greatest worries by contemporary
adolescents.
One possible reason why an increase in the worry of
nuclear war was found with the spontaneous, subjective
data but a decrease was found with the forced-choice,
objective data is because of the TYPE of questions that
are asked.
That is, an open-ended question (where
subjects write their responses in their own words) versus
forced-choice questions (where the subjects are provided
with ansv1ers).
With the open-ended question (that was
asked PRIOR to the rating of the 20 worry items),
subjects had the right to respond freely,
their own ,,,ords.
the
openly, and in
There were no restrictions and no
manipulations to get the subjects to think in the area of
the nuclear issue.
But with the objective questions,
specific answer (worry) was staring right at them,
a
which
subsequently forced them to think about it (the worry)
and respond to it by rating how nuch they fear
Again, maybe the type of the question,
generate different responses -
11
it."
itself, can
as evidenced in this
analysis.
Another possible reason for the difference is that
when one is asked to respond spontaneously to a question
he/she tends to think in the immediate present rather
than in an
11
overall" time realm.
For example,
if a
subject just finished taking an exam and were asked to
@ •
47
spontaneously list his/her greatest worry, the student's
response might be his/her resulting grade earned on the
test, or grade in that class, or just school in general,
as that imoediate event (taking the exam) would have
influenced his/her immediate thoughts.
Whereas,
given
the same circumstance (exam) but offering the subject
specific worries to rate rather than have him/her respond
openly (spontaneously),
his/her rating would not involve
such an immediate impact unless that specific worry
(school,
bad grades,
flunking,
etc.) were one of the
worry items.
THE GOLDENRING/DOCTOR
l
FACTORS
The three factors developed by Doctors John
Goldenring and Ron Doctor are: Factor 1 (External) which
contains the worry categories (responses) of getting
cancer, earthquakes, nuclear war and war(non-specific),
pollution, nuclear power plants leaking,
over population,
and starvation; Factor 2 (Personal) which contains the
worry categories (responses) of not being liked,
dating,
no job,
looking ugly, no money, and bad grades; Factor 3
(Death/Harm) which contains the worry categories
(responses) of victim of a violent crime,
parents and family,
or crippled.
own death,
death of
health and becoming sick
These factors were derived from factor
analysis study of the 998 subjects identified as a
normative sample in this study.
48
Examining each factor individually (pre and post)
and then overall (pre and post):
FACTOR
l
(External)
In terms of actual frequency,
war (and war non-specific)
the worry of nuclear
proved by far to be the
greatest fear on both the pre-test and post-test (lipre =
58; !post= 58). The worry of getting cancer ranked
(distantly) as the second greatest worry on the pre-test
(~
= 6) and third greatest worry on the post-test (tied
with both "Pollution" and "Starvation" N = 3).
Insert Table 18 about here
In terms of intensity ranking,
however,
the pre and
post-test results were virtually identical, with the
worry of getting cancer being the greatest worry (IRpre
=
1.83; IRpost = 1.67) followed by the worry of nuclear war
(IRpre = 2.07; !.]post= 1.95).
FACTOR 2 (Personal)
Bad grades proved to be the greatest worry on both
the pre-test and the post-test in terms of actual
frequency
(Npre =54; Hpost = 30),
intensity ranking,
pr e - t e s t
but according to the
the greatest worry for factor 2 on the
wa s the wo r r y o f
" No r.10 n e y "
( Il<. = 1 . 6 3 ) ,
but
on
the post-test the greatest worry was "looking ugly 11 (IR
49
1. 42).
FACTOR 3 (Death/Harm)
The ranking in terms of actual frequency was
identical for both pre and post-test,
resulting in
"family death" as the greatest worry (l:!pre = 43; l:ipost =
36),
11
followed by
0\m
death" Oipre
=
20; _Npost
=
15), and
then closely followed by "Becoming sick or crippled"
OiP r e
=
18 ; Jip o s t
= 14) ,
and fin a 11 y
11
being a victim of a
violent crime" (j:ipre = 8; Npost = 4).
The worry of family death remained to be the
greatest worry on the pre-test when analyzed in terms of
intensity rating (IR = 1.63), but dropped to being the
second greatest Horry for factor 3 on the post-test (IR
=
1.67). The Harry of being a victim of a violent crime was
the greatest worry on the post-test (IR
Harry of
11
=
1.50).
The
0Hn death" was the third greatest worry on both
the pre-test and the post-test (IRpre = 1.95; IRpost
=
1. 80).
ALL 3 FACTORS -
OVERALL
According to the intensity rating for each category,
Factor 2,
on the pre-test,
proved to be the most intense
factor with an overall intensity rating of .0808,
but
Factor 3 was very close as the second overall most
in tense factor \vi th IR =
• 0845.
Factor 1, which includes
the specific worry category of "nuclear war" (and Har
50
non-specific) was the third most intense factor (IR =
.1435).
For the post-test, Factor 3 proved to be the most
intense factor overall (IR3 = .0989).
Factor 2 was
second (IR2 = • 1254), and Factor 1, again, ranked as the
third most intense factor (IRl = .1614).
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
The implications and conclusions that are drawn from
the findings in this study are extraordinary,
they show
just how much children today worry about nuclear war,
intensity of this worry,
the
and the pre-occupation these
thoughts provoke.
The objective data indicates, moreover,
just how
suppressed the nuclear worry is, and how "psychically
numb" our children are.
The majority of the twenty worry
items were found to cause LESS worry on the post-test than
on the pre-test, with the subjects who viewed the movie
claiming to worry the least overall.
The spontaneous responses,
however,
proved to record
an INCREASE in the worry of nuclear war from pre-test to
post-test, with the subjects ranking it as the 7th
greatest worry overall on the pre-test but ranking it the
5th greatest worry overall on the post-test.
This finding
clearly elicits the possibility that different kinds of
questions (forced-choice, objective; or open-ended,
subjective) generate different kinds of responses.
Overall, it can be concluded that today's child is
very much concerned with the threat of nuclear war (and
"its" related factors,
dying and own death),
feelings of fear,
for a future.
such as getting cancer,
family
and subsequently experiences
sadness,
powerlessness, rage, and doubt
These worries begin at a very young age,
51
52
but are nevertheless, mind-boggling and terrifying, and
all but monopolize a child's everyday thoughts and
activities.
There is also.an impact on personality development
from this lingering nuclear threat.
With children growing
up fully aware and believing that there may be no future
(thereby experience an uncaring about the events of their
daily life), and that the adult world seems unable to
combat this threat,
these children ultimately become dull
and disengaged toward life in general.
There are a few recommendations that can be made to
help our children deal with these horrifying and, yet,
extremely abstract worries:
One recommendation is to have
educational programs that (ideally) provide children with
accurate information about nuclear science and
technology.
Since our young people are going to receive
information one way or another and cannot be protected,
it
is imperative to their psychological development that they
get solid, meaningful,
Hack states,
and accurate information.
As John
"When people are supported in "bearing" the
awful truth about the effects of nuclear devices,
not retreat in despair,
they do
but are more likely to become
responsibly involved" (p.22) and more able to cope.
A second recommendation is to create opportunities
that will be available for a young person to be able to
talk about these frightening and troubling nuclear
concerns with responsible adults (who,
themselves, are,
53
ideally, educated about the issue).
These recommendations are best synopsized by what Dr.
Harold Voth stated at the Testimony before the U.S. House
of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Youth,
and Family (1983),
"We should provide good family life,
teach our children all we possible can as they grow up so
they can eventually master the challenge of life.
They
must learn the basics first and then the more difficult
field later, after having achieved the maturity to
comprehend them. Then as adults they will possess
sufficient courage and knowledge of the human condition to
enter into negotiations with other nations -
not from a
position of passivity, despair, fear and trembling,
but
from a position of courage, reason, strength, competence
and hope for the future (p.l4).
This study's careful look at attitudes among
children,
especially. those children who revealed anxiety
about their existence help us, as professionals,
parents
and teachers to better understand and deal with their
behavior,
their hopes, and their aspirations.
Chapter 5
LH1ITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
There are five major and crucial limitations of this
study that need to be mentioned.
One limitation is that
the subjects who participated were not randomly selected
into the experimental and control conditions. That is,
subjects who viewed the movie,
the
"The Day After," did so,
on
their own, while the subjects who did not view the movie,
chose not to,
therefore,
on their own.
The control group was,
self-selected, which makes one immediately
presume there might be intrinsic differences between those
subjects in the experimental group and those in the
This confounding might just be an
control group.
alternative reason why the responses between the two
groups differ (that is,
intervention,
they differed NOT because of any
but because the two groups were different to
begin with).
A second limitation of this study is that the
treatment or intervention (the movie) was not a CONTROLLED
intervention.
The experimental groupd did not sit in one
room and watch the movie all together,
they did not even
sit in the same room under the same conditions, at
different times.
Each subject viewed the movie in his/her
own way (with the family,
on,
lights out,
friends,
by themselves,
while drinking alcohol,
etc.).
lights
A major
element of local history would tend to be a confounding
variable here.
54
55
A third limitation is that as with the experimental
group, the control group's activities were not controlled
for either.
movie,
They did not, as a group, view a neutral
do exercises, or play games.
Each control group
subject could have been doing a different activity during
the airing of the movie.
A fourth limitation is the problem of some of the
subjects reporting they viewed the movie in its entirety
while others claiming they viewed only a portion. All
these subjects were identified as members of the
experimental group,
but can the person who viewed only 1/2
hour of the movie get the same feelings and meaning from
such a movie that another person who viewed all of it (2
hours worth) get?
was viewed?
And what thirty minutes of the movie
The beginning? The end?
At the attack?
Before the attack?
After the attack?
A fifth limitation is that the 216 subjects who were
administered the pre-test were re-administered the
post-test.
This procedure allowed the subjects to (1)
respond to the same questionnaire twice (eliciting a
possible testing effect) and (2) respond to the
questionnaire (post-test) while knowing the purpose of the
study they were participating in.
Thus,
this study might not only have problems with
generalizing,
validity).
but also with confounding (internal
References
Angelino, H.
& Shedd,
Shifts in the content of fears
C.
and worries relative to chronological age. Proceedings
Qf Science, 1953,
from Oklahoma Academy
~.
180-186.
American high school seniors view the
Bachman, Jerald G.
military: 1976-1982.
Armed Forces and Society, 1983,
lQ (1), 86-104.
Beardslee, William
& Mack,
John.
Adolescents and the
threat of nuclear war: The evolution of a
perspective.
1953, 22_,
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine,
79-81.
Beardslee, William
& Mack,
John.
The impact on
children and adolescents of nuclear development.
H • S c ln1 e be 1 ( Ed • ) P s y c h o so c i a 1 a s p e c t s
In:
Qf n u c 1 e a r
development, Task Force Report #20, American
Psychiatric Association, Washington,
D.C., 1983,
64-93.
Campbell, E.Q.
Some psychological correlates
of character in attitude change.
Social Forces,
1958,
1.2_, 335-340.
Carey, M.
Growing up in the nuclear age.
Bulletin
Qf the Atomic Scientists, 1983,
Croake, James I>J.
Donald V.
36-42.
Adolescent fears.
Human Development,
Dellums,
12.
1969,
ll
(4),
239-247.
Children's fear of war.
Statement Before the
U.~.
House of Representatives
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families.
56
57
References (cont'd)
September 21, 1983.
Children and the threat of nuclear war.
Escalona, S.K.
In: M. Schwebel (Ed.), Behavioral Science and Human
Survival, Palo Alto, CA.
Books, Inc.
Science and Behavioral
1965.
Escalona, S.K.
Growing up with the threat of nuclear
war: Some indirect effects on personality
development.
1982,
21
Glass, A.J.
American Journal .2.[ Orthopsychiatry,
(4), 600-607.
Psychological considerations in
atomic warfare.
U.S. Armed Forces Medical Journal,
1956 ]_, 625-639.
Goldenring, John M.
& Doctor, Ronald M.
Adolescents'
concerns about the threat of nuclear war.
Before the
Committee
U.~.
~
Testimony
House .2.[ Representatives Select
Children, Youth, and Families.
September
20, 1983.
Goodman, L.A.; Mack, J.E.; Beardslee, W.R.
& Snow, R.M.
The threat of nuclear war and the war arms race:
Adolescent experience and perceptions.
Psychology, 1983,
Granberg, Donald
~
Political
(3), 501-530.
& Faye, Norman.
Sensitizing people by
making the abstract concrete: Study of the effect of
"Hiroshima-Nagasaki: 1945." American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 1971,
Greiger, H.J.
il
(5), 811-815.
Addressing apocalypse now: The
I
58
References (cont'd)
effects of nuclear war as a public health concern.
American Journal of Public Health, 1980, 2Q (9),
958-961.
Haas, Scott D.
Presentation at the Beth Israel Hospital January 13,
1983.
Hayes, Steven C.
The effect of coping statements on
progress through a desensitization hierarchy.
Journal
Qf Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychology, 1983
(June),~
Janis, I.
(2), 117-129.
& Feshbach, S.
communications.
48,
Effects of fear arousing
Journal
£I
Abnormal Psychology, 1953,
78-92.
Klavens, Jon.
Unpublished manuscript.
Lewis, K.N.
war.
The prompt and delayed effects of nuclear
Scientific American, November 1979, 241 (5),
35-47.
Lifton, Robert J.
Beyond psychic numbing: A call to
awareness.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1982, 52 (4),
619-629.
Lifton, Robert J.
Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima.
Simon
& Schuster, 1967.
New York:
•
59
References (cont'd)
Lifton, Robert J.
Testimony Before the U • .§.. House .2l_ Representatives
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families.
September 20, 1983.
Mack, John E.
But what about the Russians?
Harvard Magazine, March-April:
21-24, 53-54.
Mack, John E.
Testimony Before the
Q. .§..
House .2l_ Representatives
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families.
September 20, 1983.
~lack,
John E.
The perception of U.S.- Soviet intentions
and other psychological of the arms race.
American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1982, 52, 591-599.
Haurer, A.
What children fear.
Journal .2l_ Genetic Psychology, 1965, 106, 265-277.
Helear, John D.
Qf Genetic Psychology, 1973, 123, 359-360.
Journal
Nagy, Maria.
Journal
Children's perceptions of death.
The children's theories concerning death.
Qf Genetic Psychology, 1948,
Newcomb, T.H.
&
Svelha, G.
in attitudes.
Putney, S.
R.
1,
180-205.
Some factors associated with
student acceptance or rejection of war.
Sociology Revue, 1962,
3-27.
Intra family relationships
Sociometry, 1937,
& Middleton,
11.
27, 655-667.
American
60
References (cont'd)
Reagan, Ronald.
Address to the nation on "Nuclear
Strategy Toward the Soviet Union.
11
New York Times,
November 23, 1983.
Schwebel, M.
Effects of the nuclear war threat on
children and teenagers: Implications for
professionals.
American Journal
£i
Orthopsychiatry,
1982, 52 (4), 608-616.
Schwebel, M.
Nuclear cold war: Opinions and professional
responsibility.
In: M. Schwebel (Ed.) Behavioral
Science and Human Survival, Palo Alto, CA., Science
and Behavioral Books, Inc. 1965.
Thurlow, S.
Nuclear war in human perspective: A
survivor's report.
American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 1982, 52 (4),
White, Edward; Elsom,
Bill
conceptions of death.
638-645.
& Prawat, Richard.
Children's
Child Development, 1978, 49,
307-310.
Wrightsman, Lawrence S.
Parental Attitudes and Behavior as Determinants of
Children'~
Responses .!.£ the Threat of Nuclear \var.
Random House, N.Y. 1970.
APPENDIX A
Page
Table of Contents.
1. Nuclear War questionnaire
. ....... . . .........
.. ...................
(Post-test)
. .... .. .....
questions ... . ...... ....
62
2. Instructions (Pre-test)
62
3. Re-test Instructions
63
4. Additional Post-test
61
73
62
INSTRUCTIONS
These instructions will be real aloud by the person g1v1ng the
questionnaire, as you read along silently. Listen carefully.
Purpose of the Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to find out some of the things
that teenagers worry about. TIUS IS NOT A TEST, so there are no right
or wrong answers. Please read all instructions and questions
carefully.
Harking your Answer Sheet
DO NOT fill in anything on this form or your answer sheet until
you are told to do so. The answer sheet can only be processed by the
scanning machine if you fill it in using a number 2 pencil.
Turn the ansHer sheet over to side 2, and we shall look at the
examples together. Example number 4 is the only one that is marked
correctly. It is important that you fill in the circle of your answer
completely. Stay within the line of the circle. Hake your mark
solidly.
Preliminary Information
Now let's turn the answer sheet back to the first side. DO NOT
make any marks yet. DO NOT Hrite in your name, and DO NOT mark in the
circles in the space provided for your name. These questionnaires are
completely anonymous. No one Hill knoH how you answered each
question, except you. So, be honest in giving ansHers.
On the top line, where it says COUI<SE, write in your grade
level. In other words, write in a 6 if you are in the sixth grade, a
7 if you are in the seventh grade, and so forth. DO NOT mark your
instructor's name. We will not be needing this information.
Next, mark in your sex (M or F) in the area provided on the
ans\ver sheet (near the top, next to the heavy vertical line). Hark
down your birth date by filling in the month, day and year of birth in
the lower left hand boxes on the answer sheet.
Background Information
We are now ready to begin answering the questions. On the right
hand side of the questionnaire there are spaces for answers to 100
questions. (You will not be using all 100 questions).
Each question can be answered by marking in an A, B, C, D, or E
so that five choices are possible. For each item, mark only one
choice.
63
RETEST INSTRUCTIONS
We know that you have already completed this questionnaire. We
want to see if anything has changed the last time you filled it out.
DO NOT try to remember your past answers. Just answer each item
the ~you feel today. There are a few extra questions to be
answered at the end of this questionnaire.
Also, be sure to enter the same telephone number that you used
last time. This will help us match up this questionnaire with the one
you completed last time.
THANK YOU!
64
QUESTIONNAIRE
1. I am a(n):
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black
Latino or Hispanic
Native American
White (Non-Hispanic)
NOTE: If you do not think that any of these categories
are appropriate leave the item blank.
2. The number of years your father (or males head
of household) went to school (Nark one):
A. Grade school
B. Some junior high or high school
C. High school graduate
D. Some college
E. College graduate
NOTE: If you don't know, leave the item blank.
3. If your father (or male head of household) is a
college graduate, did he go to graduate school, law
or medical school to get a higher degree?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Don't know
4. The number of years your mother (or female
head of household) went to school (Hark one):
A. Grade school
B. Some junior or high school
C. High school graduate
D. Some college
E. College graduate
NOTE: If you don't know, leave the item blank.
5. If your mother (or female head of household) is a
college graduate, did she go to graduate school, law
or medical school to get a higher degree?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Don't know
65
Please answer questions 6 and 7 for your
present
home situation only.
6. Is your father (or male head of household):
A. Employed
B. Unemployed
c.
Disabled
D. Retired
E. Don't know or does not apply
7. Is your mother (or female had of household) :
A. Employed
B. Unemployed
c.
Disabled
D. Retired
E. Don't knm..r or does not apply
8. What is your family religion?
A. Catholic
B. Protestant (Anglican, Presbyterian, United,
Baptist, etc.)
C. Jewish
D. No religion or don't know
E. Other (such as Buddhist, 1-luslim, or other)
9. What kind of work does your father (or male head of
household) do?
A. Professional or managerial (such as doctor,
lawyer, executive, teacher,
minister, manager, architect,
engineer, scientist, nurse,
accountant, social worker,
etc.)
B. Owner (small store owner, small
business owner, farmer, etc.)
C. Clerical or sales (bookkeeper, office
worker, salesman, post office worker, bank
teller, secretary, key punch operator, etc.)
D. Skilled worker (craftsman, construction
worker, electrician, foreman, jeweler,
fireman, mechanic, repairman, plumber, tool
and die maker, tailor, artist, musician, etc.)
E. None of these
i1 •
,, .
66
10. Kind of work father does (continued):
A. Semi-skilled (laborer, machine operator, truck
driver, barber, hospital worker, beautician, factory
worker, bus driver, long-shoreman, household
vrorker, porter)
B. Homemaker
C. Never worked
D. None of these
E. Don't know
11. What kind of work does your mother (or female head of
household) do?
A. Professional or managerial (such as
doctor, lawyer, executive, teacher, minister,
manager, architect, engineer, scientist,
nurse, accountant, social worker, etc.)
B. Owner (small store owner, small business
owner, farmer, etc.)
C. Clerical or sales (bookkeeper, office
worker, saleswoman, bank teller, secretary, key
punch operator, post office worker)
D. Skilled worker (craftsman, construction
worker, electrician, foreman, jeweler,
fireman, mechanic, repair woman, plumber, tool
and die maker, tailor, police officer)
E. None of these
12. Kind of work mother does (continued):
A. Semi-skilled (laborer, machine operator,
waitress, hospital worker, receptionist,
beautician, factory worker, bus driver, household
vJOrker)
B.
C.
D.
E.
Homemaker
Never worked
None of these
Don't knov:
13. How much fear do you feel most days?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
A lot of fear
Usually fearful
Somewhat fearful
Only occasionally fearful
Almost never fearful
67
14. How happy are you most of the time?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Very happy
Usually happy
Somewhat happy
Only occasionally happy
Usually not happy
15. Hmv worried do you get about things in your
life?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Very worried - often think about fearful things
Usually worried
Somewhat worried
Only occasionally worry about anything
Usually not worried
16. How do you usually feel about yourself?
A. Usually feel good about myself - positive, confident
B. Mixed feelings - sometimes good but sometimes
negative or unhappy
C. Usually negative or down on myself, only sometimes
positive
D. Nearly always negative, very few positive
feelings about myself
17. How well do you fit in with other teenagers?
A. Very well
B. \'Jell
c.
Somewhat
D. Not well
E. Not at all
18. Everyone has things
words, please write
the spaces provided
worry first, and so
to \vorry about. In your mm
your THREE GREATEST ~~ORRIES in
below. Please list your worst
on.
1.
2.
3.
·I
68
You have now finished Part One of this questionnaire. Please be
sure you have read all questions. Please remember not to change
answers once you have written them down. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR 1-JRONG
ANS\•JERS.
Once you begin Part Two, do not .BE_ back to change ans\.,rers in Part
One, even if the new questions make you want to change old answers.
Please answer all questions in Part Two in order as you did in Part
One and do not go back to change answers.
IHPORTANT: Some people get upset just thinking about things that
worry or frighten them. If the questionnaire is upsetting you badly,
please let your teacher know. You DO NOT have to finish this
questionnaire, but we hope very much that you will.
TURN PAGE FOR PART T\vO.
69
Below is a long list of things that many
people say they worry about. Please
read each of the 20 statements and fill in
how you feel
about each one. Please do not go back and change your previous
ansv1ers.
Not At
All Harried
Harried
A Little
Hoderately
Harried
Very
Harried
19. Getting cancer
A
B
c
D
20. Earthquakes
A
B
D
21. Getting hooked
on drugs
A
B
c
c
22. People not liking
you
A
B
c
D
23. Not being able to
find a job
A
B
c
D
24. Having to move
somewhere ne\v
A
B
c
D
25. Getting pregnant/
m'aking someone
pregnant
A
B
c
D
26. Nuclear war
A
B
c
D
27. Looking ugly
A
B
D
28. Parents divorcing
A
B
29. Pollution
A
B
30. Being the victim
of violent crime
A
B
c
c
c
c
31. Parent dying
A
B
c
D
32. Nuclear power
plants leaking
A
B
c
D
33. Your own death
A
B
c
D
34. \<lor ld over-population
A
B
c
D
35. Becoming very sick
or crippled
A
B
c
D
D
D
D
D
70
A
36. Your family not
having enough money
B
c
D
37. People starving in
the world
A
B
c
D
38. Getting bad grades
A
B
,.,I.J
D
Now, please go over the list of 20 statements below and pick out
the four greatest worries for you. Hark the !:_ on the ansHer sheet
next to the number of the item that is your greatest worry, a B by the
one that is your second greatest worry, a C by the one that is third
greatest worry, and a D by your fourth greatest worry. Mark only one
A, one B, one C, and one D in the list of 20 worries below. Mark down
your first impression and-DO NOT go back to change any previous
answer.
39. Getting cancer
40. Earthquakes
41. Getting hooked on drugs.
42. People not liking you
43. Not being able to find a job
44. Having to move somewhere new
45. Getting pregnant/making someone pregnant
46. Nuclear war
47. Looking ugly
48. Parents divorcing
49. Pollution
SO. Being the victim of violent crime
51. Parent dying
52. Nuclear power plants leaking
53. Your own death
54. World over-population
55. Becoming very sick or crippled
71
56. Your family not having enough money
57. People starving in the world
58. Getting bad grades
YOU SHOULD HAVE ONLY FOUR ANS\•JERS FOR THIS SECTION.
The rest of these questions are about nuclear war which is
something that some people say they worry about. Please answer all
questions carefully.
59. How old do you think you were when you first
heard about nuclear (atomic) bombs? (Fill in only one
ans\.,rer)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Less than 5 years old
5-7 years old
8-10 years old
11-13 years old
Never heard of them
60. Have you ever thought about nuclear war?
A. No, never
B. Yes, a few times
C. Yes, often
61. Have you talked to your parents about nuclear war?
A. No, never
B. Yes, a few times
C. Yes, often
62. Do you think a nuclear war bet\.,reen the U.S. and
Russia will happen during your lifetime?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Definitely No
Probably No
Unsure
Probably Yes
Definitely Yes
63. If there were a nuclear war, do you think that
you and your family would survive?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Definitely Ho
Probably No
Unsure
Probably Yes
Definitely Yes
72
64. If there were a nuclear war, do you think the U.S.
\vould survive?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Definitely No
Probably :•Jo
Unsure
Probably Yes
Definitely Yes
65. Do you think nuclear war between the U.S. and
Russia can be prevented?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Definitely No
Probably No
Unsure
Probably Yes
Definitely Yes
66. Do you feel there is
anything you
can do
to help prevent a nuclear war?
A.
b.
C.
D.
E.
Yes, definitely
Yes, but not sure exactly what to do
1·!aybe, i don't know
I don't think I could have much of an effect
No, I couldn't have any effect
67. Thinking about nuclear war has affected my
plans for the future.
A. A lot
B. Somelvhat
c.
Unsure
D. Very little
E. No
68. Thinking about the possibility of nuclear
war makes me wonder if I really want to get
married and have children some day.
A. A lot
Somewhat
c. Unsure
D. Very little
"'}
D.
E. No
69. Thinking about the possibility of a nuclear
war makes me want to live only for today
and forget about the future.
73
A. Yes
B. Frequently
C. Unsure
D. Not often
E. No
70. The amount of information I have received about
nuclear war in school is: (please fill in only one answer)
A. Hore than enough
B. About right
C. Too little
D. Not at all enough
E. Not sure
71. Did you see the television movie
The Day After?
A. Yes
B. Yes, but only part of it
C. No
If
72
to
72
you marked A to the above question, SKlp numbers
and 73 and go directly to number 74. If you answered C
the question above, please answer question number
only (skip number 73).
72. If you only watched part of the program, mark one of the
alternatives below which applies to you:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Tuned in late - missed the first part
Turned off because it was too scary or upsetting
Turned off because it was boring
My parents didn't want me to watch it
Other
----------------------------------------
73. Why didn't you see the movie?
A. Didn't hear about it
B. Heard about it, but had more important things
to do or other TV shows I wanted to watch
Heard about it, but didn't watch because I thought it
would upset me
D. Parents would not let me watch and they did not watch
it
E. Parents watched it, but would not let me watch
c.
74. lvith whom did you watch the movie?
A.
B.
C.
D.
h'hole family
Myself and parents, but not with brothers and sisters
Sisters, brothers but not parents
Friends
@ •
74
E. Alone
75. Seeing the movie made me feel: (Write as much as you
want)
APPENDIX B
Table of Contents
1.
Table
1:
Distribution of Participants' Race/
Nationality, Their Current Grade
Level in School, and Their Parents'
Educational Level
2.
Table
2:
........................
Difference Scores for 20 Worry Items
Given Movie/No Movie Condition
3.
Table
3:
78
...........
81
Distribution of Pre and Post-test
Responses on the 20 Worry Items in terms
of Frequency, Mean, Standard Deviations,
and Percentage of Participants who
Responded "Very Worried" ••••••••••••••••••
4.
Table
4:
Difference Scores for Entire Sample
on 20 Worry Items •••••••••••••••••••••••••
5.
Table
5:
83
85
Difference Scores, "Nominal 95%"
Planned Comparison Confidence Intervals,
and Simultaneous Confidence Intervals •••••
6.
Table
6:
87
Distribution of How Each of the 20 Worry
Items Rated as Being the Top 1,2,and
3 Greatest Worry (Pre and Post) in
Frequency and Percentage, along with Mean
and Standard Deviations per Worry Item ••••
7.
Table
7:
89
Distribution of Top 5 Worries (of the 20
Worry Items) for Nuclear Related Worries
in terms of Frequency and Percentage
8.
Table
8:
Distribution of Pre and Post-test
75
93
76
Responses to Questions Specific to Nuclear
War Issue in terms of Frequency, Percentage,
Mean, and Standard Deviations ••••••••••••
9.
Table
9:
95
Difference Scores for Nuclear War
Questions Given Movie/No Movie
Condition
10.
Table 10:
................................
100
Developed Categories Obtained From
Spontaneous Responses of Normative
Sample • . . . • • . • • . • • • . . . . • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • .
11.
Table 11:
Examples of Responses for Categories Not
Clear and Definitive •••••••••••••••••••••
12.
Table 12:
Table 13:
103
Condensation of Worries into Broader
Categories •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
13.
101
105
Distribution of Spontaneous Responses for
Only the Top 1 (Greatest) Worries
for Normative Sample in terms of Frequency,
Intensity Rating, and Percentage •••••••••
14.
Table 14:
106
Distribution of Frequency of the Number
1 Greatest Worry Out of the Top 3 for
Pre-test, Post-test, and Normative
Sample •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
15.
Table 15:
108
Distribution of Spontaneous Responses in
terms of Frequency, Intensity Rating (IR),
and Ranking for Frequency and Intensity
Rating on Pre-test •••••••••••••••••••••••
16.
Table 16:
Distribution of Spontaneous Responses in
terms of Frequency, Intensity Rating (IR),
110
77
and Ranking for Frequency and Intensity
Rating on Post-test ••••••••••••••••••••••
17.
Table 17:
113
Ranking of Top 5 Worries over all 33
Categories Pre-test to Post-test in terms
of Frequency and Intensity Rating ••••••••
18.
Table 18:
116
Goldenring/Doctor 3 Factors for Pre-test
and Post-test in terms of Frequency and
Intensity Rating for Categories, Factor,
and Ranking of Categories and Factor.
Pre-test ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
117
Post-test •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
119
78
Table 1
Distribution of Participants' RacehJationali ty, their
Current Grade in School, their Parents' Educational
Level, and their Parents' Employment Status (N
Distribution of Participants' Race/Nationality
Nationality
'l
.~
Rel Freg (%)
Asian
35
16.2
Black
10
4.6
Hispanic
21
9.7
Native American
13
6.0
Distribution of Participants' Grade in School
Grade
N
Rel Freg (%)
s
80
37.0
9
45
20.8
10
00
00.0
11
42
19.4
12
49
22.7
= 216)
I
'
79
Table 1 (cont'd)
Distribution of Educational Level of Participants' Pareats
Level of Education
Grade school
father
mother
.5%
2.3%
8.8
7.4
High school
21.3
34.7
Some college
21.3
23.6
College graduate
38.9
25.0
9.3
6.9
Graduate school
14.4
8 .u
Blank
22.2
29.2
Some junior high school
Blank
f)
Distribution of Erap1oyment Status of Participants' Parents
.C:mp1oyment Status
Employed
UneElp1oyed
Disabled
father
mother
n
oc7
O;o
8 0.
71. 3~~
5.1
18.1
.9
.5
Retired
1.4
Don't Know
3.7
.5
.9
7.6
Blank
Professional
49.5
30.6
Owns small business
4.6
3.2
Clerical or Sales
4.2
23.1
Skilled 'darker
24.1
4.6
None of the above
13.4
31.0
j,1
80
Table 1 (cont 1 d)
father
mother
4.2
7.4
17.6
17.6
Never worked
.9
19.4
None of the these
.s
2.3
Don 1 t Kno\ol
53.2
39.8
Blank
23.1
16.7
Employment Status
Blank
Homemaker
•
81
Table 2
Difference Scores for 20 Harry (objective) Items
Given i1ovie/No Hovie Condition
Movie l(No movie) N = 129
Movie 2 (Saw movie) N = 77
Hovie
X Diff
S.D.
!.Getting Cancer
1
2
-.12
-.16
.89
.81
2. Eai·thq uakes
1
2
.06
• 0"
0
.88
.90
3.Getting hooked on
drugs
1
2
.07
.10
.90
4.People not liking
you
1
2
-.07
-.08
.91
.93
5 .l\ot being able to
find a job
1
2
-.09
-.04
.94
1.12
6.Having to move
somewhere new
1
2
-.12
0.00
1.33
.99
7.Getting (making
someone) pregnant
1
2
-.16
-.13
1.18
.91
8.Nuclear war
1
2
-.16
-.26
1.19
l.Lf0
9.Looking ugly
1
2
-.08
-.14
1.06
1.05
lO.Parents divorcing
1
2
-.05
-.08
1.04
.91
11. Pollution
1
2
-.21
-.29
.92
.93
1
2
-.32
-.16
1.05
1.21
Item
12.:3eing a victim of
violent crime
• SL}
82
Table 2 (cont'd)
S.D.
l•iovie
X Diff
--
13.Parent dying
1
2
-.29
-.08
1.17
1.19
14.?-Juclear power
plant leaking
1
2
-.08
-.27
1.12
1.12
15.0wn death
1
2
-.17
-.23
1.12
1.21
16. \~orld over-population
1
2
-.18
-.03
.96
.96
17.Becoming sick/
crippled
1
2
-.32
-.25
1.21
1.28
18.Family not having
enough money
1
2
-.26
.29
.97
.99
19.People starving
in world
1
2
-.19
.03
.92
1.23
20.Getting bad grades
1
2
-.29
.00
1.13
.97
Item
83
Table 3
Distribution of Pre and (Post) Responses on 20 Harry Items
in terms of Actual Frequency
and Percentage
C~),
r'lean, Standard Deviations,
.9i Participants who Responded "Very Harried"
% Very
\vorried
Item
N
1. Getting Cancer
18(16)
2 .04(1.84)
.86(.96)
8.3(7.4)
9(10)
1. 87(1.87)
.79(.87)
4.2(4.6)
2.Earthquakes
S.D.
3.Getting hooked
on drugs
12(7)
1. 35(1. 37)
.76(.68)
4.6(3.2)
4.People not
liking you
23(20)
2.36(2.28)
.95(.93)
10.6(9.3)
5.Not being able
to find a jo-o
31(23)
2.19(2.11)
1.02(.97)
14.4(10.6)
6.Having to move
somewhere new
27(17)
2. 04( 1. 87)
l.QL,(.94)
12.5(7.9)
1 •
7 .Getting ( ma.<lng
someone) pregnant
28(17)
1. 90(1. 69)
1.04(. 97)
13.0(7.9)
8. I~uclear var
72(51)
2.85(2.55)
1.05(1.03) 33.3(23.6)
9.Looking ugly
33(25)
2.38(2.11)
.99(.97)
15. 3( 11. 6)
lO.Parents divorcing
23(21)
1. 75(1.66)
1.00(.94)
10.6(9.7)
11. Pollution
18(6)
2.03(1. 79)
.83(.75)
8.3(2.8)
12.Being a victim of
violent crime
44(17)
2.44(2.09)
.98(.89)
20.4(7.9)
13.Parent dying
93(74)
3.09(2.82)
.99(1.04) 43.1(34.3)
14.Nuclear power
plant leaking
23(15)
2 .17(1.83)
.95(.89)
15.0wn death
45(30)
2.32(2.04)
10.6(6.9)
1.16(1.05) 20.3(13.9)
84
Table 3 (cont'd)
Item
"
H
X
S.D.
% Very
vJorried
4.6(4.6)
16.World over-population
10(10)
1. 91(1. 7S)
.83(.82)
17.Becoming sick/
crippled
47(25)
2.43(2.04)
1. OS(. 90)
21.8(11.6)
18.Family not having
enough money
29(21)
2.22(2.11)
1. OS(. 90)
13.4(9.7)
19.People starving in 32(19)
the vmrld
2.43(2.26)
.93(.88)
14.8(8.8)
20.Getting bad grades 67(43)
2.70(2.46)
1.09(1.02) 31.0(19.9)
85
Table 4
Difference Scores for Entire Sample
on 20 Horry Items (N = 206)
Item
S.D.
-.13
0.86
2.Earthquakes
.07
0.89
3.Getting hooked
on drugs
.08
0.86
4.People not
liking you
-.07
0.92
S.Not being able
to find a job
-.07
1.01
6.llaving to move
somewhere nev:
-.07
1. 21
7.Getting (making
someone) pregnant
-.15
1.08
S.Nuclear war
-.20
1.27
9.Looking ugly
-.10
1.05
lO.Parent divorcing
-.06
1.00
ll.Pollution
-.17
0.92
12.Being a victim of
a violent crime
-.24
1.12
13.Parent dying
-.21
1.18
14.Nuclear power
plant leaking
-.15
1.12
15.0wn death
-.16
1.16
1. Getting cancer
86
Table 4 (cont'd)
Item
x
S.D.
16. \vorld overpopulation
-.12
0.96
17.Becoming sick/
crippled
-.29
1.23
18.Family not having
enough money
-.13
0.99
19.?eople starving
-.09
1.08
20.Bad grades
-.18
1.09
87
~
.I
Table 5
11
Difference Scores, uNominal 95% Planned Conmarison
Confidence Intervals, and Simultaneous Confidence
Intervals
£L
=
(based~ Dunn'~
Bonferroni
~statistic).
. I
156
Item
Nominal
Confidence Interval
Simultaneous
Confidence Interval
l.Getting cancer
-.2302
-.1278
-.2593
-.0987
2.Earthquakes
-.0416
.0536
-.0688
.0808
3.Getting hooked
on drugs
-.0595
.0335
-.0860
.0600
4.People not
liking you
-.1599
-.0581
-.1899
-.0291
5. ;~ot being able
to find a job
-.1361
-.0319
-.1653
-.0022
6.Having to move
somewhere ne11
-.2323
-.1257
-.2627
-.0953
7 .Getting (makin2
someone) pregnant
-.3166
-.2094
-.3471
-.1789
8.Nuclear war
-.3250
-.2150
-.3564
-.1836
9.Looking ugly
-.2768
-.1712
-.3069
-.1411
10.Parent divorcing
-.1357
-.0303
-.1658
-.0002
ll.Pollution
-.2983
-.2017
-.3259
-.1741
12.Being a victim
-.3595
of a violent crime
-.2545
-.3894
-.2246
13.Parent dying
-.3694
-.2586
-.4010
-.2270
14.J.Juclear pO\ver
plant leaking
-.3074
-, 20Lf6
-.3368
-.1752
15.0vm death
-.2544
-.1436
-.2859
-.1121
·I
88
Table 5 (cont'd)
Item
Nominal
Confidence Interval
Simultaneous
Confidence Interval
16. ~vorld overpopulation
-.2422
-.1458
-.2696
-.1184
17.Becoming sick/
crippled
-.3608
-.2532
-.3916
-.2224
18.Family not having
enough money
-.2334
-.1266
-.2638
-.0962
19.People starving
-.2817
-.1803
-.3106
-.1514
20.Bad grades
-.3297
-.2203
-.3608
-.1892
89
Table 6
The Distribution
.£f. HOiv
l
Being the ..!:QQ. _l,_£ and
Each .2!_ the 20 Harry Items £Zated as
Greatest \'Jorrv (..12.!:.£. and post) in
ftCtual Frequency (N), Relative Frequency
Standard Deviations
~
(%), and Mean and
\vorry Item
PRE-T[ST
\,Torry Item
%'o )
2
V(%-)
li
l
7(3.2)
6(2.8)
4(1.9)
14(6.5)
9(4.2)
5(2.3)
2
8(3.7)
9(4.2)
1(0.5)
15(6.9)
15(5.6)
6(2.3)
"
18(8.3)
10(4.6)
8(3.7)
13(6.0)
17(7.9)
4(1.9)
X
2.59
2.56
2.95
2.53
2.53
2.65
S.D.
0.97
1.05
1.11
1.14
1.03
1.19
8
N(%)
9
N(l;)
10
N(%)
11
H(/6)
NUO
l
') 1ang
•
1,an
.)
·
)•,1. (
7
\l
.i..'t
( 10
'/)
0
3
:IC~)
4
N(7S)
6
12
1
13(6.0)
43(19.9)
6(2.8)
5(2.3)
2(0.9)
6(2.3)
2
15(6.9)
23(10.6)
10(4.6)
11(5.1)
3(1.4)
13(6.0)
3
9(Lf. 2)
18(8.3)
16(7.4)
9(4.2)
15(6.9)
20(9.3)
X
2.47
2.11
2.71
2.69
3.13
2.J2
S.D.
1.16
1.14
1.00
1.05
0.85
0.97
90
Table 6 (cont'd)
Harry Item
13
14
15
16
17
18
N(%)
N(%)
N(%)
N(%)
N(%)
N(%)
1
59(27.3)
2(0.9)
10(4.6)
1(0.5)
7(3.2)
5(2.3)
2
30(13.9)
6(2.8)
18(8.3)
6(2.8)
7(3.2)
15(16.9)
3
25(11.6)
16(7.4)
11(5.1)
1(0.5)
13(6.0)
13(6.0)
2.00
2.87
2.63
3.11
2. 77
2.84
S.D. 1.08
0.82
1.11
1.08
1.09
1.01
X
19
20
liCs)
NO~)
1
5(2.3)
20(9.3)
2
5(2.3)
23(10.6)
3
9(4.2)
16(7.4)
vA
2.93
2.64
1.11
1.17
S.D.
91
POST-TEST
~~orry
Ranking
I terns
1
2
3
4
5
6
N(%)
N(%)
N(7~)
N(%)
N(%)
N(%)
1
12(5.6)
5(2.3)
4(1. 9)
14(6.5)
9(4.2)
2(0.9)
2
9(4.2)
7(3. 2)
4(1. 9)
13(6.0)
6(2.8)
8(3.7)
3
12(5.6)
14(6.5)
5(2.3)
11(5.1)
12(5.6)
4( 1. 9)
X
2.47
2.70
2.81
2.61
2.62
3.00
S.D.
1.14
0.98
1.17
1.19
1.14
1.06
7
N(:~)
8
9
10
N(%)
iiCin
NCO
12
11
i·l (/~)
ii ( ~~)
1
6(2.8)
51(23.6)
10(4.6)
9(4.2)
1(0.5)
10(4.6)
2
7(3.2)
28(13.0)
14(6.5)
12(5.6)
6(2.8)
8(3.7)
3
15(6.9)
26(12.0)
9(L~.2)
8(3.7)
6(2.8)
E3(3.7)
X
2.80
2.01
2. Lt4
2.37
2.83
2.58
S.D.
1.03
1.05
1.10
1.07
0.92
1.20
14
15
N(%)
13
16
17
18
f~')
l·l1\h
'•l(n)
h
;;,
1
57(26.4)
1(0.5)
11(5.1)
2(0.9)
7(3.2)
7(3.2)
2
30(13.9)
13(6.0)
13(6.0)
3(1.4)
8(3.7)
10(4.6)
I·~ ( ~~)
N(/;)
92
Table 6 (cont'd) --POST-TEST
3
-:::;
A
S.D.
13
14
N(%)
I~(%)
31(14.4)
4(1. 9)
''C)
1~ io
N(%)
17
N(%)
17(7.9)
6(2.3)
4(1. 9)
1"0
N(/~)
18(8.3)
2.57
2.62
3.21
2.76
2.56
1.09
0.90
1.09
1.00
1.22
0.95
19
20
N(%)
1
3(1.1+)
25(11.6)
rl
L.
4(1.9)
20(9.3)
3
13(6.0)
17(7.9)
3.17
2.63
0.94
1. 21
S.D.
16
2.07
N(l~)
A
'"
15
,, .
93
Table 7
Distribution of top 1_ worries (of 20) for nuclear related
worries in terms of Actual Frequency (ll) and Relative
Fr~uency
(N
(%), along with Standard Deviations on Pre::_ and (Post)
216)
=
Item
"7
N
/o
1
7 (12)
3.2 (5.6)
2
8 ( 9)
3.7 (4.2)
3
18 (12)
8.3 (5.6)
S.D.
l.Getting Cancer
4
6
(10)
2.8 (4.6)
5
1 ( 1)
0.5 (0.5)
Blank
176 (172)
ol.5 (79.5)
1
43 (51)
19.9 (23.6)
2
23 (28)
10.6 (13.0)
3
18 (26)
8.3 (12.0)
4
18 (13)
8.3 (06.0)
5
1 (00)
0.5 (00.0)
113 (98)
52.5 (45.4)
1
59 (57)
27.3 (26.4)
2
3"'v (30)
13.9 (13. 9)
3
25 (31)
11.6 (11+.4)
.97 (1.14)
2. ;,rue lear \-Jar
Blank
1.14 (1.05)
3.Parent Dying
1. 08 ( 1. 09)
~
94
Table 7 (cont'd)
Item
N
%
4
17 (lS)
7.9 (08.3)
5
2 (00)
0.9 (00.0)
83 (80)
38.4 (37 .0)
Blank
S.D.
4.Nuclear Pm·1er
Plant Leaking
1
2 ( 1)
0.9 (0.5)
2
6 (13)
2.8 (6.0)
3
16 ( 4)
7.4 (1. 9)
4
6 ( 5)
2.8 (2,3)
5
1 (00)
0.5 (0.0)
185 (193)
35.6 (89.4)
1
10 (ll)
4.6 (5.1)
2
13 (13)
Oo.J
3
11 (17)
5.1 (7.9)
4
17 (16)
7.9 (7.4)
5
3 (00)
1.4 (0.0)
157 (159)
72.7 (73.6)
Blank
.82 (.90)
S.Own Death
Blank
n
':{
(6.0)
1.11 (1.09)
.
95
Table 8
-
Distribution of Pre- and (Post)-Test Responses to Questions
Specific to Nuclear \var Issue in terms of Actual Frequency (l!.),
Relative Frequency (%), }iean, and Standard Deviations
(N = 216)
Item
%
X
S.D.
l.Hmv old do you think
you \vere \vhen you first
heard about nuclear(atomic)
bombs?
<S
yrs old
6(6)
2.8(2.8)
5-7
27(28)
12.5(13.0)
8-10
91(91)
42.1(42.1)
11-13
86(78)
39.8(36.1)
never heard of
them
0(5)
2.3(2.3)
Blank
6(3)
0.0(3.7)
3.22(3.23) .78(.82)
2.Have you ever thought
about nuclear \mr?
No, never
Yes, a few times
Yes, often
Blank
12(12)
5.6(5.6)
126(125)
58.3(57.9)
74(70)
34.3(32.4)
4(8)
1.9(3.7)
2.29(2.28) .57(.57)
3.Have you talked to your
parents about nuclear war?
i~o,
never
86(58)
39.8(26.9)
1. 70(1.83) .65(.07)
96
Table 8 (cont'd)
Item
Yes, a few times
Yes, often
Blank
.X
N
104(129)
48.1(59.7)
23(22)
10.6(10.2)
3(6)
1.4(2.8)
X
S.D.
4.Do you think a nuclear war
between US and Russia will
happen in your lifetime?
Definitely No
7(11)
3.2(5.1)
25(39)
11.6(18.1)
109(92)
50.5(42.6)
63(55)
29.2(25.5)
Definitely Yes
9(13)
4.2(6.0)
Blank
3(6)
1.4(2.8)
Probably No
Unsure
Probably Yes
3.18(3.10) .82(.95)
5.If there were a nuclear war,
do you think that you and your
family would survive?
Definitely No
49(59) 22.7(27.3)
Probably No
79(81) 36.6(37.5)
Unsure
65(60) 30.1(27.8)
Probably Yes
15(7)
6.9(3.2)
Definitely Yes
4(3)
1.9(1.4)
Blank
4(6)
1.9(2.8)
2.27(2.11) .96(.91)
6.If there were a nuclear war,
do you think the US would survive?
Definitely No
34(50) 15.7(23.1)
Probably No
56(66) 25.9(30.6)
Unsure
79(68) 36.6(31.5)
Probably Yes
39(19) 18.1(8.8)
2.64(2.33) 1.02(1.06)
97
Table 8 (cont'd)
Item
S.D.
N
Definitely Yes
4(8)
1.9(3. 7)
Blank
4(5)
1.9(2.3)
7.Do you think a nuclear war
bet\veen the US and Russia can
be prevented?
Definitely No
2(5)
0.9(2.3)
Probably No
14(21)
6.5(9.7)
Unsure
49(61) 22.7(28.2)
Probably Yes
88(75) 40.7(34.7)
Definitely Yes
59(52) 27.3(24.1)
Blank
4(2)
3.89(3.69)
.92(1.02)
1.9(0.9)
B.Do you feel there is anything
YOJ can do to help prevent
a nuclear war?
Yes, definitely
16(15)
Yes, not sure what
36(34) 16.7(15.7)
1-laybe, I don't know 53(52)
7.4(6.9)
3.93(3.46) 1.21(1.21)
2L~. 5 ( 24.1)
Doubt Effectiveness 61(62) 28.2(28.7)
i.J"o, no effect
Blank
45(50) 20.8(23.1)
2.3(1.4)
5(3)
9.Thinking about nuclear war
has affected my plans for the
future?
A lot
7(4)
3.2(1.9)
Somewhat
30(39) 13.9(18.1)
Unsure
23(34) 10.6(15.7)
Very Little
72(58) 33.3(26.9)
3.88(3.79) 1.16(1.18)
98
Table 8 (cont'd)
Item
S.D.
N
79(79) 36.6(36.6)
Blank
5(2)
2.3(0.9)
lO.Thinking about the possibility
of nuclear war makes me wonder
if I really \vant to get married
and have children some day.
A lot
18(14)
8.3(6.5)
Somewhat
15(26)
6.9(12.0)
Unsure
21(18)
9.7(8.3)
Very Little
46(37)
21.3(17.1)
No
Blank
4.02(4.03) 1.30(1.31)
109(118) 50.5(54.6)
7(3)
3.2(1.4)
ll.Thinking about the possibility
of nuclear war makes me want to
live only for today and forget
about the future.
Yes
15(13)
6.9(6.0)
Frequently
15(23)
6.9(10.6)
Unsure
21(24)
9. 7(11.1)
Not very often
41(47)
19.0(21.8)
No
Blank
4.11(3.99) 1.26(1.26)
118(107) 54.5(49.5)
6(2)
2.8(0.9)
12.The amount of information I have received
about nuclear war in
school is:
Hore than enough
15(16)
About right
66(69) 30.6(31.9)
Too little
53(54) 24.5(25.0)
6.9(7.~-)
3.05(2.98) 1.21(1.23)
99
Table 8 (cont'd)
Item
N
_l
Not at all enough
39(54) 18.1(25.0)
Not sure
34(21) 15.7(9.7)
Blank
9(2)
4.2(0.9)
x
S.D.
il
'
100
(l
Table 9
pifference Scores for Nuclear
Ho_yie/No llovie Condition
l~ar
Questions Given
Movie 1 (No movie) (N = 129)
Movie 2 (Saw movie) (N = 77)
QUESTIOi~
l.Do you think a
HOVIE
vA
S.D.
-.093
-.221
.945
1.150
2
-.209
-.117
.826
1.214
1
2
-.233
-.286
1.129
1.163
4.Do you think a
1
nuclear war
2
bet>veen the us and
Russia can be prevented?
-.1L~o
-.195
1.197
1.267
.101
.143
1.198
1.241
nuclear \var will
happen during your
lifetime?
2.If there vere a
nuclear war, do
you think you and
your family would
survive?
3.If there were a
nuclear \'l'ar, do
you think the us
would survive?
5.Do you feel there
is anything YOU
can do to help
1
2
1
1
2
.I
'
101
Table 10
Developed Categories Obtained From Spontaneous Responses
of Normative SamDle (N
= 998)
CATEGORIES (and Subsets)
1. Death
la- Self, general
lb- Family, friends, loved ones, etc.
2. Future (self, general)
3. \v'orld Future
4. Crime
4a- Victim (self, family)
4b- General
4c- Inflicting or becoming a criminal
5. Future (1'-Iarriage, family, children, and $ concerning these)
6. Physical Appearance
7. Health
7a- self, general
7b- Others (family, friends, etc.)
8. General Concern for Others
9. Family Situations/Proble~s/Concerns
9a- General (non-specific)
9b- Divorce, family splitting up
9c- Parents (approval, relationship, mom or dad)
9d- Economic
10. General about Self
11. Social (dating, friends, acceptance/rejection)
12. Material things, objects, possessions
13. Boy-/Girl-Friend Issues
13a- General
13b- Pregnancy (becoming, or making someone else)
14. Nuclear \Jar
102
Table 10 (cont'd)
CATEGORIES (and Subsets)
15. War (non-specific)
16. Future (job, $, success/failure)
17. Present (job, $, success/failure)
18. Honey
19. Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking
20. School (present)
21. School (future)
22. Loneliness
23. Earthquakes (and other natural disasters)
24. Love
25. Certain things (animals, heights, noises, driving)
26. Philosophical (religious)
27. Frivolous Responses
28. Blanks
29. \Jorld
29a20b29c29d29e29f29g-
(Present-General)
Pollution
Economic
Political
Communism
Starvation
Freedom
Other (general)
30. Other (Fears that fit nowhere)
31. Sports
32. Present (General)
33. Future (Becoming an adult, a woman, growing old)
103
Table 11
Examples of Responses for Categories that
Clear and Definitive (Namely,
~
Catego~£,
1,
Not
~'
Category and Examples
2
FUTURE (self, general)
What will be happening in the next few years
My future
The uncertainty of the future
What I'll do when I'm 18
3
WORLD FUTURE
What the world will be like in the future
What this world is coming to
8
GENERAL CONCEDRN FOR OTHERS
My friends and family
Other students getting in trouble
Child abuse
The old people in the world
10
--
GENERAL ABOUT SELF
.
Being too shy
Me
Becoming taller
My personal problems
10, 1£,
104
Table 11 (cont'd)
Category and Examples
12
MATERIAL THINGS, OBJECTS, POSSESSIONS
My car
My dog
The computer
Our house
26
PHILOSOPHICAL
(Religious)
The 2nd Coming
Being at peace with myself
Everyone losing respect for fellow man
27.
FRIVOLOUS RESPONSES
Swimming in a pool of strawberry yogurt
Video games will be abolished
Running out of 'Kool-Aid'
30
OTHER
(Fears that fit nowhere)
Getting stuck in the mud with my brother's truck
Any tragedy
33
FUTURE
(Becoming an adult, a woman, growing old)
Getting old
Living up to being an adult
Becoming a woman
105
Table 12
Condensation of Worries into Broader Categories
(Table 9's categories are in parenthesis to show which of
the 33 original categories make up the new condensed
category)
Condensed Category (Corresponding Categories)
1. Self-Image/Self-Concern/Social Image
(2,6,10,11,12,13,19,22,24,31,32,33)
2. School Concerns (20,21)
3. Economic Worries (5,9d,l6,17,18)
4. Death of Loved-One (lb)
5. Concerns Re Family/Others (8,9a,9b,9c)
6. War (14,15)
7. Own Death (la)
8. Illness/Health (7)
9. World State/Future (3,29)
10. Crime (4)
11. Earthquakes (23)
(Not categorizeable
= 25,26,27,28,30)
Q .
106
Table 13
Distribution of Spontaneous Responses for only the Top l
(Greatest) Worries for Normative Sample in terms of Actual
Frequency (N), Intensity Rating (IR), and Percentage
(N
= 998)
Category
N
IR
%
1. Death
351
1.71
35.17
2. Future (se1f,general)
158
1.83
15.83
3. World Future
13
2.15
1.30
4. Crime
46
2.12
4.61
5. Future (marriage,
family, children)
22
2.52
2.20
6. Physical Appearance
38
2.00
3.81
127
1.94
12.73
8. General Concern for
Others
19
2.26
1.91
9. Family situations/
problems/concerns
169
1.89
16.93
10. General about self
130
2.14
13.03
11. Social
126
2.13
12.63
12. Material things
31
2.39
3.11
13. Boy-/Girl-friend issues
82
2.24
8.22
101
1.65
10.12
63
1.81
6.31
16. Future (job, $, success/ 266
failure)
1.86
26.65
7. Health
14. Nuclear War
15. War (non-specific)
,,
107
Table 13 (cont'd)
IR
%
17. Present (job, $, success/ 38
failure)
2.24
3.81
18. Money
44
2.11
4.41
19. Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking
22
2.00
2.20
20. School (present)
328
1.75
32.87
21. School (future)
156
1. 79
15.63
22. Loneliness
26
2.12
2.61
23. Earthquakes (natural
disasters)
34
1.94
3.41
24. Love
23
2.30
2.30
25. Certain things (animals,
heights)
32
2.09
3.21
26. Philosophical (religious) 29
2.14
2.91
27. Frivolous Responses
17
2.06
1. 70
504
2.35
50.50
46
2.52
4.61
1
1.00
o.oo
31. Sports
14
1.86
1.40
32. Present (general)
17
1.88
1. 70
Future (becoming a woman, 15
an adult)
1.80
1.50
Category
28. Blanks
29. World (present-general)
30. Other (fears that fit
nowhere)
33~
N
'
108
Table 14
Distribution of Actual Frequency (N) of The Number
Worry (Out of the Top
1 Greatest Worries) for Spontaneous
Responses for Pre-test,
PRE
CATEGORY
l Greatest
Post-~,
and Normative Sample
POST
NORMATIVE
N
N
N
1
32
23
173
2
9
2
67
3
1
0
3
4
4
1
16
5
1
2
5
6
3
2
14
7
17
15
41
8
1
1
5
9
16
9
62
10
0
1
30
11
4
1
35
12
4
6
4
13
7
6
14
14
13
23
56
15
7
1
26
16
16
6
98
17
2
0
6
18
2
3
10
19
2
0
8
109
Table 14 (cont'd)
PRE
CATEGORY
POST
NORMATIVE
N
N
N
20
23
12
159
21
19
11
68
22
1
2
7
23
0
1
11
24
0
0
4
25
0
0
9
26
1
0
9
27
0
2
6
28
3
45
86
29
2
0
8
30
0
0
1
31
2
1
4
32
1
1
7
33
0
0
5
193
177
1057
TOTAL
110
Table 15
Distribution of Spontaneous Responses in terms of Actual
Frequency (N), Intensity Rating (IR); and Ranking for
Frequency and Intensity Rating -- PRE-TEST
N
1 = How many subjects spontaneously
responded to the corresponding category
being their greatest worry.
N
= How
many subjects spontaneously
responded to the corresponding
category being their second
greatest worry.
2
N
3 = How many subjects spontaneously
responded to the corresponding
category being their third
greatest worry.
N
1
N
N Total
2
3
N
IR
9
23
5
8
7
8
21
39
1.90
1.62
32
I3
2.
9
6
15
3.
1
0
4a.
4b.
4c.
2
2
0
4
1
1
CATEGORY
la.
lb.
-4-
x = 1. 72
1
1
30
2.20
7
11
2
3
2.33
4
1
2
10
4
3
2.20
1. 75
2.67
10
10
11
11
15 60
-7-
6
Ranking For:
freq.
IR
17 X = 2.18
5.
1
3
1
5
2.00
6.
3
6
6
15
2.20
111
Table 15 (cont'd)
N
N
N
Total
1
2
3
N
IR
9
8
9
4
8
5
26
17
1.96
1.82
17
13
13
43
x = 1.91
5
5
8.
1
3
6
10
2.50
12
12
9a.
9b.
9c.
9d.
2
4
8
5
2
11
3
0
0
6
1
7
6
25
6
1. 71
1.33
1.92
1.83
4
3
9
9
8
8
CATEGORY
7a.
7b.
2
I6 21
7
44" X = 1.80
Ranking For:
Freq.
IR
10.
0
2
3
5
2.60
11.
4
7
7
18
2.17
12.
4
2
1
7
1.57
13a.
13b.
6
1
6
2
7
1
19
4
2.05
2.00
7
8
8
23
X = 2.04
13
7
10
4
13
3
36
14
2.00
1. 71
so
X = 1.92
3
7
5
5
14.
15.
"""20 1"4 16
16.
16
16
11
43
1.88
17.
2
1
2
5
2.00
18.
2
3
2
7
2.00
19.
2
2
2
6
2.00
20.
23
23
13
59
1.83
2
4
21.
19
13
9
41
1. 76
6
2
22.
1
0
3
4
2.50
23.
0
0
3
3
3.00
112
Table 15 (cont'd)
N
1
N
N
Total
2
3
N
IR
24.
0
1
0
1
2.00
25.
0
3
0
3
2.00
26.
1
3
1
5
2.00
27.
0
0
5
5
3.00
28.
3
7
12
22
2.40
29a.
29b.
29c.
29d.
29e.
29£.
29g.
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
2
1
2
0
0
1.67
1.50
2.00
3.00
2
-4-
2
30.
0
0
0
0
0.00
31.
2
3
1
6
1.83
32.
1
0
1
2
2.00
33.
0
1
1
2
2.50
CATEGORY
8
Ranking For:
Freq.
IR
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
X = 2.00
(To determine the ranking of the categories, calculations
were made for the entire category, only (totalling out their
subsets) for the majority of the 33 categories. Subsets
were tabulated separately only for those
categories that relate to the
nuclear war issue; namely,la-own death,general, lb-family
death.
(Categories with less than 10 total responses were not
included in the rankings.)
113
Table 16
Distribution of Spontaneous Responses in terms of Actual
Frequency (N), Intensity Rating (IR); and Ranking for
Frequency and Intensity Rating -- POST-TEST
N
1
= How
many subjects spontaneously
responded to the corresponding
category being their greatest
worry.
N
2
=
N
3
= How
How many subjects spontaneously
responded to the corresponding
category being their second
greatest worry.
many subjects spontaneously
responded to the corresponding
category being their third
greatest worry.
CATEGORY
la.
lb.
N
N
N
Total
1
2
3
N
7
5
12
4
16
5
16
43
1.81
1.28
23
---rr
9
59
x = 1.42
IR
2.
2
2
5
9
2.33
3.
0
0
2
2
3.00
4a.
4b.
4c.
0
0
1
4
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
o.oo
2
1.50
-1-
s.
2
5
3
0
0
6
2.00
X = 1.83
5
1.60
Ranking for:
freq.
IR
1
1
114
Table 16 (cont'd)
N
1
N
N
Total
2
3
N
IR
6.
2
3
4
9
2.22
7a.
8
17
7
5
3
4
7b
1
11
1.76
1.45
15
8
5
~
x = 1.64
CATEGORY
B.
1
2
3
6
2.33
9a.
9b.
9c.
9d.
2
2
3
2
1
3
6
0
1
1
2
0
4
6
2
1.75
1.83
1.91
1.00
9
10
23
x = 1.78
10.
1
0
3
4
2.50
11.
1
5
4
10
2.30
12.
6
0
0
6
1.00
13a.
13b.
5
1
3
2
1
10
3
1. 70
2.00
6
14.
15.
1
4
4
3
14
7
11
13 X= 1.77
Ranking For:
Freq.
IR
6
2
7
4
9
9
8
3
2
5
4
8
9
6
23
1
8
5
24""
I3
16.
6
16
9
31
2.10
17.
0
3
1
4
2.25
18.
3
4
3
10
2.00
19.
0
0
0
0
o.oo
20.
12
17
16
45
2.09
3
7
21.
11
8
11
30
2.00
5
6
22.
2
0
1
3
1.67
45
13
1.80
2.46
21 58 X = 1.95
115
Table 16 (cont'd)
N
N
N
Total
1
2
3
N
IR
23.
1
0
3
4
2.50
24.
0
0
0
0
o.oo
25.
0
1
1
2
2.50
26.
0
0
2
2
3.00
27.
2
1
2
5
2.00
28.
45
48
54
147
2.06
29a.
29b.
29c.
29d.
29e.
29£.
29g.
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
2
0
0
2.67
2.00
CATEGORY
0
o.oo
o.oo
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
30.
0
0
0
0
o.oo
31.
1
4
1
6
2.00
32.
1
0
3
4
2.50
33.
0
0
1
1
3.00
0
2.50
0.00
o.oo
-3- -6- X = 2.50
Ranking For:
Freq.
IR
116
Table 17
Ranking of Top
1
Worries Over all 33 Categories in terms of
Actual Frequency (N) and Intensity Rating (IR) -- PRE
(with special interest as to where the worry
of nuclear war ranked)
PRE
RANK
POST
Categories
in terms of
N
IR
Categories
in terms of
N
IR
1
1
1
2
20
21
14,15
7
3
14,15
9
20
13
4
9
20
16
9
5
16
16
21
14,15
(category 14,15 ranked
as the seventh greatest
worry in terms of IR on
the Pre-test)
1
1
!.£. POST
117
Table 18
Goldenring/Doctor 3 Factors for
Pre-~
and Post-test in terms
of Actual Frequency (!) and Intensity Rating (IR) for
Categories, Factor, and Ranking of Categories and Factor
PRE-TEST
----
Factor 1 (External)
Categories
N
IR
Getting cancer
6
1.83
Earthquakes
3
Factor
IR
2
1
3.00
3
3
58
2.07
1
2
Pollution
0
Nuclear Leak
0
Over population
0
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
Starvation
2
3.00
4
4
69
9.90
Not being liked
15
2.20
3
5
No job
15
1.80
3
3
Dating
0
o.oo
Nuclear war (and War)
TOTAL
0.144
Ranking of:
Categories
Factor
N IR
N IR
3
3
1
1
Factor 2 (Personal)
0.081
118
Table 18 (cont'd)
Factor 2 (Personal)
Categories
N
IR
Factor
IR
Ranking of:
Categories Factor
N IR
N IR
Looking ugly
14
2.10
4
4
No money
19
1.63
2
1
Bad grades
54
1. 72
1
2
TOTAL 117
9.45
4
4
Factor 3 (Death/Harm)
Victim of crime
8
2.00
Parents, family death
43
1.63
1
1
Own death
20
1.95
2
3
Sick/Cripple, health
18
1.94
3
2
89
7.52
TOTAL
0.085
2
2
119
POST-TEST
----
Categories
Factor
N
IR
IR
Getting Cancer
3
1.67
0.161
Earthquakes
4
Ranking of:
Categories
Factor
N
IR
3
1
2.50
2
3
58
1.95
1
2
Pollution
3
2.67
3
4
Nuclear Leak
0
o.oo
Over Population
0
0.00
Starvation
3
2.67
3
4
71
11.46
7
2.43
5
3
No job
25
2.56
2
4
Dating
0
o.oo
Looking ugly
12
1.42
4
1
No money
16
1.88
3
2
Bad grades
30
3.00
1
5
Factor 1 (External)
Nuclear War (and War)
TOTAL
N IR
2
3
1
2
Factor 2 (Personal)
Not being liked
TOTAL
90 11.29
0.125
1' •
120
Table 18 {cont'd)
Factor 3 (Death/Harm)
Categories
N
IR
Factor
Ranking of:
Categories
Factor
IR
N
IR
0.099
4
1
4
1.50
Parents, family death
36
1.67
1
2
Own death
15
1.80
2
3
Sick/Cripple, health
14
1.86
3
4
69
6.83
Victim of crime
TOTAL
N IR
3
1
il
.