Atomic Arguments and Counter-Arguments: How Exposure to Conflicting Information Influences American Public Support for the Use of Nuclear Weapons

Abstract In this paper, we introduce a novel approach for assessing the effectiveness of messaging designed to influence public opinion on the use of nuclear weapons. We argue that messages intended to decrease support for nuclear use are most effective when they meet three conditions. First, they must present subjects with novel counter-attitudinal information or interpretations that were not likely to be already incorporated into subjects’ opinions. Second, they must provide salient information that resonates with the values and concerns of subjects. Third, since, in the real world, the public is likely to hear both arguments and counterarguments for important policy issues, effective messages must be resilient, maintaining their effect even when respondents are exposed to strong, competing messages. We use this framework to test the effects of different messages about the legality of nuclear use, the military effectiveness of nuclear weapons, and the potential for setting precedents for nuclear use by others. We find that most messages have only modest and reversible effects. Alerting subjects to the possibility that using nuclear weapons might set a precedent making American adversaries more likely to use them in the future, however, produces the most significant reduction in support for nuclear use.