Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Presentation Type
Submission
Keywords
nuclear taboo, tradition of non-use, logic of appropriateness, logic of consequences, Christianity, Christian ethics
Department
Political Science
Major
Political Science
Abstract
Over the last several decades, constructivist and realist scholars of international relations have acknowledged the empirical holes in deterrence theory and debated the conditions contributing to the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945. While constructivists have argued that a strong norm of non-use has constrained state behavior through a logic of appropriateness, realist scholars have contended that a logic of consequences prevents their utilization. In the last decade, a wave of survey experiments have measured the validity of these theories. Though these studies generally seem to reaffirm the realist perspective, the literature largely overlooks the micro-level variables that might be constraining state’s willingness to use nukes. This study seeks to fill this gap through a quantitative analysis of the role played by Christian ethics in the willingness to support nuclear strikes. Herein, a survey experiment consistent with the literature is carried out on undergraduate students to test these effects through three groups: a control without framing, a treatment with ethical framing, and another treatment with Christian ethical framing. After receiving respective treatments, each group will read a hypothetical news article borrowed from Dill, Sagan, and Valentino (2022) and be asked to rationalize whether or not they support a nuclear strike. The research tests the groups through logit regression analysis, attributing variance in respondent perspectives to the treatments.
Faculty Mentor
Brian Newman
Funding Source or Research Program
Political Science Honors Program
Location
Black Family Plaza Classroom 189
Start Date
22-3-2024 2:45 PM
End Date
22-3-2024 3:00 PM
Included in
Christian Nukes: The Effects of Christian Ethics on Support for Nuclear Strikes
Black Family Plaza Classroom 189
Over the last several decades, constructivist and realist scholars of international relations have acknowledged the empirical holes in deterrence theory and debated the conditions contributing to the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945. While constructivists have argued that a strong norm of non-use has constrained state behavior through a logic of appropriateness, realist scholars have contended that a logic of consequences prevents their utilization. In the last decade, a wave of survey experiments have measured the validity of these theories. Though these studies generally seem to reaffirm the realist perspective, the literature largely overlooks the micro-level variables that might be constraining state’s willingness to use nukes. This study seeks to fill this gap through a quantitative analysis of the role played by Christian ethics in the willingness to support nuclear strikes. Herein, a survey experiment consistent with the literature is carried out on undergraduate students to test these effects through three groups: a control without framing, a treatment with ethical framing, and another treatment with Christian ethical framing. After receiving respective treatments, each group will read a hypothetical news article borrowed from Dill, Sagan, and Valentino (2022) and be asked to rationalize whether or not they support a nuclear strike. The research tests the groups through logit regression analysis, attributing variance in respondent perspectives to the treatments.