Civil Defense
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SURVEY OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES concerning CIVIL DEFENSE A REPORT OF A NATIONAL STUDY IN MARCH, 1954 by Stephen li. Wiiliey Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan September, 1954 4th SURVEY OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES concerning CIVIL DEFENSE A REPORT OF A NATIONAL STUDY IN MARCH, 1954 by Stephen B. Withey Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan September, 1954 FOREWORD This is a report of a national study conducted in March, 1954. It also includes material from a number of other studies that is helpful in understanding people's present attitudes toward civil defense. The climate of opinions, expectations and level of infor• mation related to civil defense is presented in this report along with the public's knowledge of certain recent and current de• velopments in the area. The Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan has, since 1946, conducted several studies that cover the re• actions of people to the threat of war. Though the early studies were focused on the prospects for war or peace and the prob• lems of international affairs, the studies since 1950 have been directly focused on the problems of civil defense. These studies, four in number, were sponsored by the Federal Civil Defense Administration. It is the last of these that is given greatest emphasis in this report. The general findings of this report indicate that, while progress has been achieved in many areas, one cannot say that the whole frontier of preparedness has been pushed forward. There are still areas in which misinformation is prevalent and there are developments in preparedness that are not well known by the public. But, there is a clearly discernable increase in interest in the topic of civil defense. Interviewers, most of whom had worked on other civil defense studies, reported that respondents were more interested in -the study than previously. Respondents asked more questions and some contacted local authorities, after the interview, for information on civil defense. These things had been exceedingly rare on the first studies for the Federal Civil Defense Administration. iii The reader of many of the interviews comes away with the impression that the public is not at all disdainful of the topic. People are not necessarily accepting civil defense but they are more adjusted to living in a world with nuclear weap• ons. They are not as fearful as they once were but they still evidence considerable concern. They do not expect war as imminently as they did two or three years ago. Nevertheless, they do report interest in preparedness and defense information. They want help, but there is no lessening in the usual time in• volving commitments and competing interests that restrict vol• untary attempts to get information and severely hamper personal participation in local efforts. Although knowledge of the existence of nuclear weapons and their effects has grown, the information that is held is not very detailed or sophisticated. People have difficulty saying what they would like to know but they do pay attention to what they feel is significant and authoritative information. About seven in ten know something about the Nevada tests in the sum• mer of 1953. This is seven in ten out of adults in the nation, adults in cities or adults in the rural areas. It held the country's attention. This report deals with matters of this kind. The public's opinions on the power of modern nuclear weapons is given. People's estimates of how many planes would get through on a bombing attack are reported. The climate of war expectancy is traced for nine years. But most of all, the report outlines the attitudes that are closely and intimately tied up with civil defense itself and the public's information and ideas about local and personal protection. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword iii Chapter 1 Some Psychological Factors in Civil Defense 1 2 Strategy of the Surveys on Civil Defense . 10 3 Background to Civil Defense , 44 4 Current Climate for Civil Defense 54 5 Civil Defense Information 79 6 Community Civil Defense 93 7 In Case of Attack. ? 108 8 Particular Groups 135 Appendix Al: Miscellaneous Tables 141 A2: Bibliography and References 169 v Chapter 1 SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN CIVIL DEFENSE The scope of civil defense is staggering. In the basic leg• islation the term means "all those activities and measures de• signed or undertaken (1) to minimize the effects upon the civil• ian population caused or which would be caused by an attack upon the United States, (2) to deal with the immediate emerg• ency conditions which would be created by any such attack, and (3) to effectuate emergency repairs to, or the emergency res• toration of, vital utilities and facilities destroyed or damaged by any such attack."! It is little wonder that members of Project East River** en• tertained, at first, (a combined project examining the problems of civil defense) an almost universal and typical reaction - a feeling of being overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of a prob• lem so large, so complex, and so seemingly impossible of ade• quate and practical solution. They saw manageability as the crux of the problem. As a result the concept of manageability was basic to the approach of Project East River and was re• flected throughout the structure and content of the report. 2 When the effort is to avoid, minimize, and/or, recover from an attack causing widespread death and material destruc• tion, the initial steps that seem to be required are not psycho• logical. People's attitudes or information do not stop a bomber in flight or turn a bomb into a dud. One rather thinks of the performance of the military in providing an early warning, the efficiency of the military in reducing the intensity of an attack, the reduction of target vulnerability through spacing and con• struction standards, the stockpiling of needed materials for medical treatment, emergency housing, feeding, and so forth. These are matters of legislative, administrative, organizational and logistical preparedness. ^Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, Public Law 920 - 81st Congress. 2General Report. Part I of the Report of Project East River, Oct., 1952. Associated Universities Inc., New York, N.Y. 1 Many of these technical matters have psychological aspects. The distinctive feature, however, of the civil defense effort is that, if civil defense is to work, the preparedness must have worked its way down to individuals and groups of individuals. Survival is still to a large extent a matter of individual behav• ior during the period of crisis and danger even when warning, direction and a certain amount of defense and protection are provided. The effective execution of the best plans and the efficient use of the most ample resources can be materially reduced if the populace, at large, does not carry out the most adaptive behavior possible during the time of disaster. Civil defense thus requires a program of information, guidance, edu• cation and training that results in motivation, insight, confi• dence and skill on the part of the public in carrying out its assigned task. Even taking just this psychological point of view, the scope of civil defense is still staggering. It requires that to a cer• tain extent people must live with uncertainty. It means that they must prepare for a day that may never come. It involves the difficult approach of facing the unwelcome possibility of widespread destruction, with the remedial and protective steps offered seeming, in many minds, to be of questionable efficacy. The psychological problems that are raised in the current and extended period of preparedness differ sharply from those that arise and will arise in a time of disaster and these in turn are not the same problems that arise during the lengthy period of recovery and reconstruction. Before a disaster occurs and when its probability is inde• terminate it is extremely difficult to motivate and involve peo• ple in the problems of surviving it. When the possible disaster also has the magnitude of an atomic attack with the probable purpose of "knocking out" a nation, people begin to discount the feasability of any defense or protection other than a mounted, military defense. When the disaster is imminent, however, these cease to be problems. Involvement is unavoidable and even the slimmest chance of survival is worth trying. Since the prime focus of civil defense is on what might be called a really major diasater, it might be worth while to 2 consider those psychological experiences that are certain to occur. One of the tasks of preparedness is to take steps, in so far as is possible, to channel crisis behaviors into adaptive and constructive areas. In any disaster fear is going to be felt. It can occur be• fore, during and after the disaster impact itself. Danger is an exceptionally strong stimulus which inevitably leads to an emo• tionally intense response. If the threat is exceptionally intense as in a "near miss," as many incidents in World War II showed, the response can be uncontrollable. If the danger is real and repeated a person develops an increasing sensitivity to the threatening aspects and anxiety increases. If the danger does not seem real or the threat does not materialize then a person adapts or gets used to the danger and feels considerably less threatened. "Wolf, Wolf" cries of impending danger lead to this sort of adaptation as does the learning of any habitual re• sponse. Even though the reaction behavior is emotionally laden it can still be adaptive or maladaptive depending on the situation in which it occurs.