IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v67y2023i6p1095-1127.html

Nonproliferation Information and Attitude Change: Evidence From South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Sangyong Son
  • Jong Hee Park

Abstract

What explains the foreign policy gap between elites and the general public on nuclear proliferation? We investigate specific contexts in which experts’ nonproliferation information changes public attitudes toward nuclear weapons development using a novel attitude change experiment. By randomly assigning seven categories of nonproliferation information to pro-armament survey participants, we examine how different types of nonproliferation information affect pro-armament respondents’ opinions and behavioral choices. The results of our experiment demonstrate the enlightening effect of economic sanctions information. After learning about the economic costs and consequences of nuclear weapons development, pro-armament respondents substantially changed their opinion as well as behaviors toward nuclear proliferation. In comparison to economic sanctions information, other types of nonproliferation information (e.g. conditional military punishment, normative sanctions, nuclear technology sanctions, elite or public opposition to proliferation) have limited effects on pro-armament subjects’ attitude changes. These findings are the first to identify the relative explanatory powers of previous explanations for nuclear nonproliferation at the individual level.

Suggested Citation

  • Sangyong Son & Jong Hee Park, 2023. "Nonproliferation Information and Attitude Change: Evidence From South Korea," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(6), pages 1095-1127, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:67:y:2023:i:6:p:1095-1127
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027221126723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027221126723
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027221126723?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua D. Kertzer & Thomas Zeitzoff, 2017. "A Bottom‐Up Theory of Public Opinion about Foreign Policy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(3), pages 543-558, July.
    2. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2011. "Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant? An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 224-238, January.
    3. Jacob M. Montgomery & Brendan Nyhan & Michelle Torres, 2018. "How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(3), pages 760-775, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lisa Langdon Koch, 2024. "Punishment and blame: How core beliefs affect support for the use of force in a nuclear crisis," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(6), pages 649-669, November.
    2. Siria Angino & Federico M Ferrara & Stefania Secola, 2022. "The cultural origins of institutional trust: The case of the European Central Bank," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 212-235, June.
    3. Andrew Delios & Edmund J. Malesky & Shu Yu & Griffin Riddler, 2024. "Methodological errors in corruption research: Recommendations for future research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 55(2), pages 235-251, March.
    4. Cilliers, Jacobus & Dube, Oeindrila & Siddiqi, Bilal, 2015. "The white-man effect: How foreigner presence affects behavior in experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 397-414.
    5. Sean D. Ehrlich & Christopher Gahagan, 2023. "The Multisided Threat to Free Trade: Protectionism and Fair Trade During Increasing Populism," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 223-236.
    6. Fuhai Hong & Tanjim Hossain & John A. List & Migiwa Tanaka, 2018. "Testing The Theory Of Multitasking: Evidence From A Natural Field Experiment In Chinese Factories," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(2), pages 511-536, May.
    7. Manabu Kuroki & Taiki Tezuka, 2024. "The estimated causal effect on the variance based on the front-door criterion in Gaussian linear structural equation models: an unbiased estimator with the exact variance," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 1285-1308, May.
    8. Christoph Dworschak, 2024. "Bias mitigation in empirical peace and conflict studies: A short primer on posttreatment variables," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(3), pages 462-476, May.
    9. Erik Peterson & Shanto Iyengar, 2021. "Partisan Gaps in Political Information and Information‐Seeking Behavior: Motivated Reasoning or Cheerleading?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 133-147, January.
    10. Charlotte Grynberg & Stefanie Walter & Fabio Wasserfallen, 2020. "Expectations, vote choice and opinion stability since the 2016 Brexit referendum," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 255-275, June.
    11. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    12. Mattingly, Daniel & Incerti, Trevor & Ju, Changwook & Moreshead, Colin & Tanaka, Seiki & Yamagishi, Hikaru, 2022. "Chinese State Media Persuades a Global Audience That the “China Model” is Superior: Evidence From A 19-Country Experiment," OSF Preprints 5cafd_v1, Center for Open Science.
    13. Jean-Marc Bourgeon & José de Sousa & Alexis Noir-Luhalwe, 2022. "Social Distancing and Risk Taking: Evidence from a Team Game Show [Distanciation sociale et prise de risque : Les résultats d'un jeu d'équipe]," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03792423, HAL.
    14. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2011. "Field Experiments with Firms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 63-82, Summer.
    15. Achyuta Adhvaryu & Namrata Kala & Anant Nyshadham, 2020. "The Light and the Heat: Productivity Co-Benefits of Energy-Saving Technology," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 779-792, October.
    16. Höllig, Christoph E. & Tumasjan, Andranik & Welpe, Isabell M., 2020. "Individualizing gamified systems: The role of trait competitiveness and leaderboard design," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 288-303.
    17. repec:osf:osfxxx:pu2yv_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Dirk De Bièvre & Arlo Poletti, 2020. "Towards Explaining Varying Degrees of Politicization of EU Trade Agreement Negotiations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 243-253.
    19. Mohammad H. Pakravan & Nordica MacCarty, 2020. "What Motivates Behavior Change? Analyzing User Intentions to Adopt Clean Technologies in Low-Resource Settings Using the Theory of Planned Behavior," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-32, June.
    20. A. Burcu Bayram & Sebastian H. Schneider & Jörg Faust & Catarina Thomson, 2024. "Manipulating the masses? Right‐wing populist messages, political ideology, and public support for multilateral development aid in Germany, the United States, and the United Kingdom," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(7), pages 2705-2724, October.
    21. Samuel I. Watson & Richard J. Lilford & Jianxia Sun & Julian Bion, 2021. "Estimating the effect of health service delivery interventions on patient length of stay: A Bayesian survival analysis approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1164-1186, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:67:y:2023:i:6:p:1095-1127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.