Authoritarianism and American Students' Attitudes about the Gulf War, 1990-1996

No Thumbnail Available

Authors

Doty, Richard M.
Winter, David G.
Peterson, Bill E.
Kemmelmeier, Markus

Issue Date

1997

Type

Citation

Language

Keywords

american people , american students , attitudes , authoritarianism , beliefs , gulf war 1991 , ideology , integrative complexity , military policy , opinions and attitudes , psychology , public opinion , relationship , social , students , vietnam-war

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Alternative Title

Abstract

Studies show a consistent set of relationships between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and aggressive support for U.S. policy during the Persian Gulf crisis and Gulf War. Before the war, high-RWA scorers endorsed more aggressive responses (including use of nuclear weapons) to hypothetical Iraqi actions. After the war, they expressed relatively more gloating and less regret and, in retrospect, endorsed more aggressive hypothetical U.S policies. (Original abstract - amended);Studies with several different groups of students over the period from October 1990 to spring 1996 show a consistent set of relationships between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and aggressive support for U.S. policy during the Persian Gulf crisis and Gulf War. Before the war high-RWA scorers endorsed more aggressive responses (including the use of nuclear weapons) to hypothetical Iraqi actions. After the way they expressed relatively more gloating and less regret and, in retrospect, endorsed more aggressive hypothetical U.S. policies. Overall, their opinions tended to be low in complexity, high in certainty, and brief.;Studies with several different groups of students over the period;Studies with several different groups of students over the period from October 1990 to spring 1996 show a consistent set of relationships between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and aggressive support for U.S. policy during the Persian Gulf crisis and Gulf War Before the war, high-RWA scorers endorsed more aggressive responses (including the use of nuclear weapons) to hypothetical Iraqi actions. After the war, they expressed relatively more gloating and less regret and, in retrospect, endorsed more aggressive hypothetical U.S. policies. Overall, their opinions tended to be low in complexity, high in certainty, and brief.

Description

Citation

Publisher

License

In Copyright

Journal

Volume

Issue

PubMed ID

ISSN

0146-1672

EISSN