UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social action in response to an external threat Dean, Ava May 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A5 D42.pdf [ 7.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097359.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097359-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097359-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097359-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097359-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097359-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097359-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097359-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097359.ris

Full Text

SOCIAL ACTION I N RESPONSE TO AN EXTERNAL THREAT By AVA MAY DEAN B.S.W., The U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF A p r i l @ Ava May BRITISH COLUMBIA 1989 Dean, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ^ Q C - l c X I COorjC The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 8°)/0gf2X> DE-6 (2/88) i i A B S T R A C T T h e p r o b l e m f o r s t u d y w a s w h e t h e r c e r t a i n s e l e c t e d f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e d s o c i a l w o r k e r s ' r e s p o n s e s t o n u c l e a r d i s a r m a m e n t . U s i n g a r a n d o m s a m p l i n g o f B . C . A . S . W . m e m b e r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , a s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o l i c i t e d r e s p o n s e s t o a n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s a i m e d a t d i s c o v e r i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e n u c l e a r t h r e a t , t h e s e n s e o f p e r s o n a l o r p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h a t t h r e a t , b e l i e f i n t h e i r o w n a b i l i t y , a n d t h e B . C . A . S . W . ' s a b i l i t y t o a c t t o c o u n t e r t h e t h r e a t , a n d t h e i r s e n s e o f p e r s o n a l e f f i c a c y . M o s t r e s p o n d e n t s s a w n u c l e a r d i s a r m a m e n t a s a s o c i a l w o r k i s s u e t h a t w a s i m p o r t a n t i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r i s s u e s , a n d f o r w h i c h s o c i a l w o r k e r s h a d s o m e t h i n g u n i q u e t o o f f e r . T h e m a j o r i t y a l s o s a w g l o b a l s o c i a l i s s u e s t o b e a s i m p o r t a n t a s l o c a l o n e s a n d m o n e y s p e n t o n t h e a r m s r a c e a s t a k i n g m o n e y a w a y f r o m s o c i a l p r o g r a m s . H o w e v e r , r e s p o n d e n t s s a w v e r y l i t t l e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s o n t h e i r c l i e n t s , t h e i r f a m i l i e s , a n d t h e m s e l v e s . T h e r e w e r e s o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n d i v i d u a l l y b e t w e e n r e s p o n d e n t s ' n u c l e a r d i s a r m a m e n t a c t i v i t y a n d t h e s e l e c t e d f a c t o r s . T h e r e w e r e n o s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , h o w e v e r , b e t w e e n s i n g l e i t e m s o f m e a s u r e a n d r e s p o n d e n t s ' a c t u a l n u c l e a r d i s a r m a m e n t a c t i v i t y , a n d t h e r e w e r e m o d e r a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n m e a s u r e s o f B . C . A . S . W . a b i l i t y t o a c t a n d r e s p o n d e n t s ' i i i a c t i v i t y . As w e l l , t h e r e were low r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s e v e r a l i t e m s o f p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and r e s p o n d e n t s ' n u c l e a r disarmament a c t i v i t y . However, a c t i o n may r e s u l t from a c o m b i n a t i o n s o f f a c t o r s , r a t h e r t h a n one f a c t o r i n i s o l a t i o n , and m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n t e c h n i q u e s c o u l d show s t r o n g e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Respondents were i n c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r answers. T h i s means t h a t , i n l o o k i n g a t s o c i a l w o r k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e t h r e a t o f n u c l e a r war, r e s e a r c h may have t o d e a l w i t h t h e i s s u e on s e v e r a l l e v e l s : t h e p o l i t i c a l , t h e p e r s o n a l , t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l , and t h e s o c i a l . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE: SOCIAL ACTION IN RESPONSE TO AN EXTERNAL THREAT A b s t r a c t i i T a b l e o f c o n t e n t s i v L i s t o f t a b l e s v CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND OVERVIEW OF STUDY 1 INTRODUCTION 1 NUCLEAR WAR AS A THREAT 3 RESPONSE TO ANXIETY ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR 9 FACTORS INFLUENCING AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE TO THE NUCLEAR THREAT: INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITY 18 1. S e r i o u s n e s s 19 2. P e r s o n a l o r p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a c t i o n 23 3. Knowledge and a b i l i t y t o a c t 25 4. Sense o f p e r s o n a l e f f i c a c y 27 PROBLEM STATEMENT 29 CHAPTER I I : METHOD RESEARCH DESIGN 30 SAMPLING DESIGN 31 INSTRUMENTATION 33 LIMITATIONS . 38 VALIDITY 40 CHAPTER I I I : RESULTS DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 45 FACTORS UNDER CONSIDERATION 48 CORRELATION BETWEEN THE FACTORS THAT MAY INFLUENCE ACTIVITY AND REPORTED N. D. ACTIVITIES ..56 CHAPTER I V : DISCUSSION DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 61 FACTORS UNDER CONSIDERATION .64 CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS 81 RESEARCH QUESTION 83 REFERENCES: 94 APPENDICIES: APPENDIX A: Stat e m e n t s by s o c i a l work groups 108 APPENDIX B: D e f i n i t i o n s I l l APPENDIX C: T a b l e s 113 APPENDIX D: Q u e s t i o n n a i r e raw d a t a 120 APPENDIX E: T h e s i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e package 128 F Desmarnis e  a l (1986) q u e s t i o n n a i r e package. 3APPENDIX G: Desmarnis e t a l (1987) q u e s t i o n n a i r e package.157 V LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I I I : TABLE I : S e r i o u s n e s s . . . . 49 TABLE I I : The im p o r t a n c e o f o t h e r s o c i a l i s s u e s i n comparison t o n u c l e a r disarmament 49 TABLE I I I : P e r s o n a l / p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 50 TABLE IV: Knowledge and a b i l i t y t o a c t 53 TABLE V: Respondents' N. D. a c t i v i t y 55 TABLE V I : C o r r e l a t i o n between N. D. a c t i v i t i e s and p e r s o n a l o r p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 56 TABLE V I I : C o r r e l a t i o n between N. D. a c t i v i t i e s and knowledge and a b i l i t y t o a c t 58 APPENDIX C: TABLE l a : Responses by B.C.A.S.W. b r a n c h 114 TABLE 2a: C o n s c i o u s n e s s o f N. D. i s s u e s 115 TABLE 2b: C o r r e l a t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s a c t u a l N. D. a c t i v i t i e s t o c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f N. D. i s s u e s 116 TABLE 3a: N u c l e a r disarmament a c t i v i t y 117 TABLE 4a: Drawbacks t o B.C.A.S.W. a c t i v i t y 118 TABLE 4b: C o r r e l a t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s ' a c t u a l N. D. a c t i v i t y t o p o t e n t i a l drawbacks t o B.C.A.S.W. N. D. a c t i v i t y 118 TABLE 5a: Impediments t o i n d i v i d u a l N. D. a c t i v i t y 119 TABLE 5b: C o r r e l a t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s ' a c t u a l N.D. a c t i o n t o p o t e n t i a l drawbacks t o i n d i v i d u a l N. D. a c t i v i t y 119 1 CHAPTER I t BACKGROUND OVERVIEW OF STUDY Awareness of the nuclear threat and recognition of the lack of s o c i a l work consensus about action to counter that threat have increased the profession's i n t e r e s t i n s o c i a l workers' attitudes towards nuclear disarmament and i n the factors that might influence s o c i a l workers' disarmament a c t i v i t i e s (Alexander, 1983; Mather 1986; Dean, 1987; Desmarnis et a l , 1986 p i l o t study). As one study i n a student research se r i e s at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia School of S o c i a l Work between 1985-1987, the thesis considers some factors that may a f f e c t s o c i a l workers' response to the threat of nuclear war. Using l i t e r a t u r e from disarmament, s o c i a l work, and s o c i a l psychology, the thesis looks at four selected factors related to taking action i n response to a threat: the perception of seriousness, personal or professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r action, a b i l i t y to act, and b e l i e f i n the e f f i c a c y of one's actions. To complete the study, the t o t a l membership of the B.C.A.S.W. was randomly sampled using a mail questionnaire (Appendix E ) . INTRODUCTION An awareness of the threat of nuclear war i s r e f l e c t e d i n disarmament and s o c i a l work l i t e r a t u r e , as well as research on children and youth. The nuclear arms race i s an immediate threat to the world for many reasons: a threat to the economy because of the negative impact of m i l i t a r y 2 spending and the diversion of resources away from meeting human needs (The Ploughshares Monitor. June 1985a & 1985b; Lundy, 1987; Lewis, 1986; Brandt, 1986; N.A.S.W. handout, undated), a threat to world human and c i v i l r i g h t s because of the repressive nature of mi l i t a r i s m and r e a l p o l i t i k (Crane, 1985; Walker, 1986; Hayter, 1982; Clarke and Swift, 1982), and a threat to the environment from nuclear wastes and the overconsumption of resources (Carothers, 1986a & 1986b). Nuclear war i s also a threat because of i t s potential for global destruction and because of i t s negative psychological e f f e c t on in d i v i d u a l s . Research and opinion p o l l s indicate that adults, children and youth are a f r a i d because they believe that they and t h e i r countries w i l l not survive a nuclear war. While many s o c i a l workers do not appear to be aware of the extent to which they or t h e i r c l i e n t s are disturbed by anxiety about the nuclear threat, the effects of t h i s anxiety may hinder general adaptive functioning and a b i l i t y to cope. As well, approaches to mitigate the negative psychological e f f e c t s of the nuclear threat apparently use many t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l work theories and s k i l l s , g i v i n g s o c i a l workers a l o g i c a l place i n the nuclear disarmament community. 3 NUCLEAR WAR AS A THREAT. The t h e s i s proposes that the potential for nuclear war i s an issue needing further consideration by s o c i a l workers on two l e v e l s : p o t e n t i a l global destruction and present psychological d i s a b i l i t y . Social workers have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to act on the basis of both kinds of threat. In the case of nuclear war, s o c i a l workers have s p e c i f i c tasks i n the Emergency So c i a l Services d i v i s i o n of Canada's di s a s t e r response plan, and nuclear war i s treated by Emergency Planning Canada as one of a number of possible d i s a s t e r s . The tasks include immediate response planning, recruitment, t r a i n i n g and maintenance of volunteers for provision of food, clothing, shelter, r e g i s t r a t i o n and inquiry systems, protection of minor children, f i n a n c i a l assistance, and mental health servies. Additionally, Emergency S o c i a l Services personnel provide information, r e f e r r a l and advocacy services to survivors and coordinate long-term mental health follow-up of both survivors and d i s a s t e r workers (Emergency Planning Canada, 1986). International Physicians f o r the Prevention of Nuclear War have gained support because physicians looking at the medical needs of a population subject to a nuclear attack have recognized there can be no e f f e c t i v e medical response to nuclear war (Carr, 1986; Goresky, 1986a). While c i v i l 4 defense planning i s not regarded favourably by nuclear disarmament s t r a t e g i s t s , recognition that there can be no e f f e c t i v e response to nuclear war may also mobilize s o c i a l workers. In looking at the present negative psychological e f f e c t s of the threat of nuclear war, findings in the nuclear disarmament l i t e r a t u r e include: everyone i s subject i n some way to the anxiety of l i v i n g i n a nuclear age (Lifton, 1982; Bernard et a l , 1977; Fried, 1982); individuals have only two choices to combat the ef f e c t s of l i v i n g under the threat of nuclear war - action or avoidance (Macy, 1979); action to reduce the subjective f e e l i n g of threat i s posit i v e or healthy when i t r e s u l t s i n peace a c t i v i t i e s of some kind (Gould et a l , 1986) and negative or unhealthy when i t involves use of defense mechanisms such as those involved i n psychic numbing or detached acceptance (Lifton, 1982; L i f t o n and Falk, 1982; Macy, 1979). In choosing action, i n d i v i d u a l s open the boundaries of t h e i r systems; i n choosing avoidance, individuals close those boundaries. Both c l i n i c a l s o c i a l work and s o c i a l action endeavor to give i n d i v i d u a l s and groups the tools to act, to improve t h e i r a b i l i t y to function, and to change t h e i r environments. As the threat of nuclear war i s a part of t h e i r s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l environment, s o c i a l workers have the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as well as the knowledge and s k i l l s to act, both i n response to c l i e n t need and as s o c i a l a c t i v i s t s . 5 a) P o t e n t i a l n u c l e a r d e s t r u c t i o n : The disarmament l i t e r a t u r e offers s c i e n t i f i c estimates about the e f f e c t s of bl a s t and radiation (Perry, 1983), the disruption of society (Schell, 1979; Perry, 1983; Pentz, 1986; Chivian, 1981), and nuclear winter (Carr, 1986; Perry, 1986a). The estimates refer to the deleterious medical, economic, p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l byproducts of nuclear war (Royal Swedish Acadamy of Sciences, 1982), as well as to the inadequacy of any c i v i l defense planning i n dealing with the r e a l i t y of nuclear war (Chivian, 1981; Pentz, 1983; Perry, 1983; C a l d i c o t t , 1982). Sci e n t i s t s have studied the p a r t i c u l a r and continuing negative e f f e c t s of the atomic bla s t s i n 1945 upon the l i v e s and health of the c i t i z e n s of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Lifton, 1967; Hersey, 1946), as well as the r e s u l t s of nuclear testing on residents of the South P a c i f i c , U.S. servicemen, and the U.S. states of Utah and Nevada (The Ploughshares Monitor. December 1986; The  Greenpeace Examiner, June 1986; Wasserman and Solomon, 1983) . Other studies on the urgency and escalating threat of nuclear war discuss changes i n the nuclear strategy of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. who have both moved from a p o l i c y of "stable mutual deterrence" (see Appendix B fo r d e f i n i t i o n s ) to " f l e x i b l e response" and "limited nuclear war" (Pentz, 1983 and 1986; C a r r o l l , 1986; Bastian, 1986). M i l i t a r y planners are developing strategies to f i g h t and p r e v a i l i n a "protracted" nuclear war, and " f i r s t - s t r i k e " weapons are 6 being developed and tested by both sides (C a r r o l l , 1986; Bundy et a l , 1986). Estimates about the extent of the threat of nuclear war to Canadian populations conclude that the Soviet Union has targeted a l l parts of the North American Aerospace Defense system including a l l Canadian radar s i t e s , command centres, communication f a c i l i t i e s and a i r defense bases. As well, a l l Canadian a i r f i e l d s capable of supporting B-52 bombers and a l l Canadian resource extraction centres are targeted ( C a r r o l l , 1983; El l s b e r g , 1983). Many writers state that the nuclear arms race i s the sing l e , most pressing issue to be dealt with regarding the immediate fate of the earth. Along with discussion about the escalating r i s k of accidental nuclear war through a strategy of "launch-on-warning," unpredictable design or systems f a i l u r e (Suzuki, 1986), and the increasing threat of simple miscalculation (Bastian, 1986), there i s a concern about "horizontal p r o l i f e r a t i o n " to non-nuclear countries and t e r r o r i s t use of nuclear weapons (Schell, 1982; C a r r o l l , 1983). Rear Admiral Eugene C a r r o l l J r . , U.S. Navy (Ret.), states that i f nuclear p r o l i f e r a t i o n continues, then by "1990 we w i l l be i n a condition where a nuclear war i s l i k e l y and almost a certainty within t h i s century" ( C a r r o l l , 1983; p.246). 7 b) Present anxiety: Surveys and opinion p o l l s focus on the l e v e l of anxiety about the threat of nuclear war and b e l i e f s about s u r v i v a b i l i t y and prevention (Gould, Moon, and Van Hoorn, 1986). Results of research on adults' b e l i e f s about the l i k e l i h o o d of nuclear war occurring i n the near future vary. Gallop reports that 40% of American adults believe i t w i l l occur within ten years (1983); C a l d i c o t t states that 31% of American adults believe i t w i l l occur within ten years (1986); and Woodworth states that 50% of adults believe i t w i l l occur within f i v e years (1987). Research to date, however, has primarily focussed on children's views of the future and t h e i r anxieties about nuclear war. The bulk of research on children has occurred during the 1980's and comparisons of international data have ju s t begun (Gould et a l , 1986). Between 1961 and 1983, a number of studies by Schwebel, and one other study using Schwebel's model, looked at American children's b e l i e f s about the l i k e l i h o o d of nuclear war. In that period of time, concern about the l i k e l i h o o d of nuclear war increased from 44% (Schwebel, 1961) to 64% (Gould, Berger Gould, and Eden, 1983). As well, a number of studies (reported i n Gould et a l , 1986) using the Doctor and Goldenring model looked at children and adolescents' ranking of fears: i n the U.S.A. (Doctor and Goldenring, 1984), i n Finland (Solantaus et a l , 1983), i n Canada (Sommers et a l , 1984), and i n Sweden (Holmborg and Bergstroem, 1984). Hargreaves (1984) applied 8 the Beardsley and Mack format to youth i n B r i t i s h Columbia. "Fear of nuclear war" ranked either f i r s t or second i n every study with "parents dying" ranking as the alternate f i r s t or second fear i n three of the four studies. There are s i m i l a r i t i e s i n concern about nuclear war by adults and youth: 33.1% of youths ages 13-18 think of nuclear war often (Doctor and Goldenring, 1984); 28% of adults worry about the p o s s i b i l i t y of nuclear war "often"/"a great deal" (L.A. Times survey, 1982 quoted i n Gould, Moon, and Van Hoorn, 1986). Seventy percent of American high school students believe the U.S.A. would not survive a nuclear war (Beardsley and Mack, 1982). Almost 81% of Soviet children ages 9-17 believe that they and t h e i r families would not survive a nuclear war, and 78.9% believe the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. would not survive (Chivian, Mack, Waletzky, et a l , 1983). Better than s i x t y - f o u r percent of 13-18 year old American youths do not believe that they or t h e i r family would survive a nuclear war (Doctor and Goldenring, 1984). Over two-thirds of Canadian youth suspect they w i l l not l i v e out t h e i r natural l i v e s (Hargreaves, 1984). Ninety-two percent of American adults believe t h e i r chances f o r s u r v i v a l are "poor" or "so-so," while only 5% of adults think t h e i r chances of surviving a nuclear war are "very good" (Doctor and Goldenring, 1984); 96% of adults believe that nuclear war would mean the end of t h e i r country and probably of the earth (Caldicott, 1986). 9 Anxiety about the potential destructive power of nuclear war and the increasing threat that nuclear war may occur appears to be widespread i n the populations studied. Response to anxiety i s a complex in t e r a c t i o n between the s t r e s s f u l event(s), i t s si g n i f i c a n c e to the i n d i v i d u a l , and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s ego strength and resources for coping (Goldstein, 1984). Anxiety about the threat of nuclear war has become a part of the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l environment and that anxiety may a f f e c t adaptive functioning. RESPONSE TO ANXIETY ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR. People may u t i l i z e either adaptive or maladaptive coping mechanisms i n an attempt to decrease anxiety. Use of maladaptive defense mechanisms generally decrease an i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y to function, increase r i g i d behaviour and operate out of awareness, while adaptive coping increases an individual's a b i l i t y to function, i s purposive and f l e x i b l e , and involves choice (Goldstein, 1984). a) M a l a d a p t i v e r e s p o n s e s : A number of writers (Mack, 1986; Macy, 1979; L i f t o n , 1982; L i f t o n and Falk, 1982; Woodworth, 1987; Fried, 1982; P o l l i s , 1983; Van Ornum and Van Ornum, 1984) discuss the negative psychological responses attributed to l i v i n g with anxiety about the threat of nuclear war. I n some cases, these e f f e c t s are discussed i n the context of an i n a b i l i t y to mobilize f o r nuclear disarmament and, i n a l l cases, as maladaptive coping responses. The l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r s 10 explanations for f a i l u r e to respond to the threat suggesting the defense mechanisms against anxiety may block an indiv i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y to respond (Woodworth, 1987; L i f t o n and Falk, 1982). Writers argue that new psychological constructs of the post-nuclear world point to the use of metadefenses (or composites of a number of defense mechanisms), including any number of the following: denial, suppression and repression ( L i f t o n , 1982; Woodworth, 1987; Fried, 1982), habituation, projection, and d i s s o c i a t i o n (Woodworth, 1987; Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl, 1977; L i f t o n , 1982). Metadefenses operate on a short-term basis to preserve the ind i v i d u a l against hopelessness, confusion, and anxiety (Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl, 1977; Van Ornum and Van Ornum, 1984), against a sense of powerlessness (Woodworth, 1987; Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl, 1977), against despair (Macy, 1979), or against unbearable, unacceptable thoughts and impulses l i k e inadequacy, revulsion, g u i l t , and shame (Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl, 1977). Metadefenses may be i n response to an acute c r i s i s or to the continuing, subtle and all-pervasive nature of the nuclear threat (Fried, 1982). In the theory of psychosocial t r a n s i t i o n (Parkes, 1982), a c r i s i s or t r a n s i t i o n occurs when a person discovers a major discrepancy between the world he encounters and h i s assumptions about that world. In t h i s case, the thought of nuclear war creates an overwhelming horror; i t involves the "loss of the assumption that the species w i l l i n e v i t a b l y 11 p u l l through....At the prospect of the extinct i o n of our c i v i l i z a t i o n , feelings of g r i e f and horror are natural" (Macy, 1979; p. 42). In the face of such loss, the i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s unable to r e l y on h i s inte r n a l perception to guide him any longer; hence he s u f f e r s bewilderment, fear, and anxiety. Some of the g r i e f that follows i s the attempt to r e s i s t acknowledging or accepting the change (Parkes, 1982). In Fried's theory of endemic stress, i n d i v i d u a l s are not presented with an acute stressor to which they can respond. Rather, they become habituated to the background danger that p e r s i s t s unchanged over time leaving them unable to judge or respond to the seriousness of the danger ( P o l l i s , 1983; Woodworth, 1987). For adults, the re s u l t s of maladaptive coping mechanisms are psychic numbing or the phenomenon of detached acceptance i n the face of overwhelming horror ( L i f t o n , 1982; L i f t o n and Falk, 1982), blindness to the implications of the threat (Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl, 1977), the shutdown of the creative l i f e processes needed to motivate or energize an i n d i v i d u a l to take appropriate action (Woodworth, 1987), the blunting of i n h i b i t i o n s and s o c i a l sanctions against mass death or destruction, and the acculturation to nuclear war as a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n diplomatic strategy (Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl, 1977). In addition, such maladaptive coping may be i n s u f f i c i e n t to contain the anxiety, leaving the i n d i v i d u a l with an increased sense of helplessness, 12 i s o l a t i o n , resignation, and apathy. Because of the d i s t o r t i o n of r e a l i t y involved i n such ego defenses, o v e r a l l ego functioning i s impaired, coping a b i l i t y i s hampered and b e l i e f i n one's e f f i c a c y i s damaged (Goldstein, 1984). For c h i l d r e n and adolescents, the reaction of hopelessness and despair to unsovable problems blunts and warps the process of a t t a i n i n g competence and mastery ( P o l l i s , 1983; Maluccio, 1979). Growing up i n a society where adults appear impotent to change a s o c i a l environment that t o l e r a t e s t o t a l destruction harms the development of immature egos and tends to foster negative patterns of personality functioning. I t can lead to depression and withdrawal, a sense of powerlessness and cynical resignation, i t can erode hopes for the future and cause n a r c i s s i s t i c personality t r a i t s , decreased a b i l i t y to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n , and feelings of b i t t e r resentment and anger towards adults (Schwebel, 1982; Chivian and Snow, 1983; Holmberg and Bergstroem, 1984; Mack et a l , 1980 [as c i t e d i n Gould et a l , 1986]; Escalona, 1982; Woodworth, 1987). As well, Gould asks whether the increase i n teen suicide of 136% between 1960 and 1980 i s related to teens' perception of a lack of a future and a lack of anything they can do to change t h e i r chances of s u r v i v a l (Gould, Moon, and Van Hoorn, 1986). "We may be seeing that growing up i n a world dominated by the threat of imminent nuclear destruction i s having an impact on the structure of personality i t s e l f " (Mack, 1981). The Diagnostic and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual of 13 Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R, 1987) states "There i s evidence that prevalence of the disorder [major depression] has increased i n the age cohorts that came to maturity a f t e r the Second World War.") b) Adaptive responses: In the case of the adaptive functioning of an individual's coping mechanisms, response to anxiety or threat involves problem-solving and mobilization for action (Compton and Gallaway, 1979; Goldstein, 1984). Action i s both a response to and a prerequisite for a sense of competency, mastery, personal growth, enhanced self-image, and adaptive s o c i a l functioning (Maluccio, 1979; P o l l i s , 1983). Social work draws from ego psychology and developmental theory to bring together a unique perspective on the effects of l i v i n g with the threat of nuclear war. Stamm (1961) states that s o c i a l work practice i s "directed toward the goal of ensuring a social-psychological environment which promotes the development of mature autonomous ego functions" (p.96). In Erikson's theory of psychosocial maturation, development-a l stages are an i n t e r a c t i o n of inner drives and s o c i a l environment (L a l l y , 1986; Goldstein, 1984). Development of ego i d e n t i t y i s an evolving configuration gradually established from developmental stages throughout childhood where the beginnings of hope, w i l l , purpose and competence are developed (Verdon-Roe, 1963; Hargreaves, 1984). Students who are able to acknowledge more worry about 14 nuclear war show better scores on measures of adjustment and self-esteem, t a l k more with parents, believe that personal action can help prevent nuclear war, and are more hopeful about the prevention of nuclear war than students who don't report worry about nuclear war (Van Hoorn and French, 1983; Doctor and Goldenring, 1984 as c i t e d i n Gould et a l , 1986). As well, they are p o s i t i v e and optimistic about the future (Verdon-Roe, 1963), and optimism i s p o s i t i v e l y correlated with school achievement (Gould, Moon, and Van Hoorn, 1986). Children who see adults taking posi t i v e action to change things recognize they are not alone; they believe that they can make a difference and count as individuals; they have some sense of control over t h e i r l i v e s (Verdon-Roe, 1963; Excalona, 1982; Schwebel, 1982). Social workers helping parents deal with questions about nuclear war may focus on encouraging them to r o l e model healthy coping, to teach the s k i l l s necessary to pa r t i c i p a t e e f f e c t i v e l y i n community a f f a i r s , to o f f e r a r e a l i s t i c hope for the future, to reassure by taking protective measures, and to indicate why i t i s less painful to act than i t i s to acquiese to the powerlessness and i r r a t i o n a l i t y of post-nuclear society (Schwebel, 1982). Sharing concerns about nuclear war appears to be related to an increased f e e l i n g of connectedness among family members. Social workers involved i n family therapy are aware tal k i n g i s an a c t i v i t y 15 important to bu i l d confidence, increase a sense of mastery over the environment, develop beginning s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a competent, healthy personality (Gould, Moon, and Van Hoorn, 1986). Since there are few s o c i a l l y sanctioned coping strategies for trauma, and society tends to discourage any acknowledgement of despair, s o c i a l workers may also use t h e i r s k i l l s i n o f f e r i n g workshops and support groups f o r individuals dealing with grieving and despair (Macy, 1979; K i l l i l e a , 1982) . Parkes (1982) notes that when legitimate grieving i s delayed or in h i b i t e d for either personal or s i t u a t i o n a l reasons, i t can r e s u l t i n pathological forms of repression or avoidance, such as psychic numbing. In workshops dealing with g r i e f and despair about p o t e n t i a l nuclear catastrophe, s o c i a l workers may offer many of the same steps involved i n working generally with psychological trauma (Macy, 1979). Uses of these techniques i n other areas of trauma include group work with disaster personnel (Lamontagne, 1983), sexual abuse survivors (Sexual Abuse Victims Anonymous pamphlet, 1986), and adult child r e n of alcoho l i c s or dysfunctional families (Adult Children Of Alcoholics pamphlet, 1987). Nuclear disarmament and s o c i a l work l i t e r a t u r e prescribe p o s i t i v e action to counter the e f f e c t s of paralysis ( L i f t o n , 1982) and depression ( P o l l i s , 1983), to decrease the sense of v u l n e r a b i l i t y , to improve b e l i e f i n one's a b i l i t y to 16 cope, to decrease fear (Gould, Moon, and Van Hoorn, 1986), to f e e l better, to increase a sense of self-worth, hopefulness and strength (Van Ornum and Van Ornum, 1984), and to f e e l a sense of competency (Woodworth, 1987; Goldstein, 1984). Action implies confidence that one can be e f f e c t i v e and make a difference (Woodworth, 1987). The emotions of fear, anger and sadness are signals to the i n d i v i d u a l that something needs to be done to use the energy of that emotion to problem solve and act (Van Ornum and Van Ornum, 1984; Maluccio, 1979). L i f t o n (1982) sees three steps i n the process of regaining emotional health: confronting the r e a l i t y of the images, experiencing the awe and dread f u l l y , and taking the necessary intense action to change the system. Both he and Woodworth c a l l t h i s action a c a l l or push to l i f e (Lifton, 1982; Woodworth, 1987). Soc i a l work l i t e r a t u r e on community sociotherapy as an intervention (Rein, 1976) suggests that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s o c i a l action can change the i n d i v i d u a l regardless of the outcome of the action. The process of organizing f o r s e l f -help, protest, access to resources, or even revolution creates a change action within the i n d i v i d u a l . That action has p o s i t i v e effects on personal health, a sense of power, integration, cohesiveness, community competency, and i d e n t i t y (Rein, 1976). When discussing the trauma of psychic numbing and despair, Macy (1979) challenges the t r a d i t i o n a l view of psychotherapy which looks at i n d i v i d u a l pathology and argues that not only does the t r a d i t i o n a l 17 approach take a dysfunctional view of the ego as i s o l a t e d and f r a g i l e , but i t also reinforces the i n d i v i d u a l ' s feelings of i s o l a t i o n and craziness. A v i s i o n of action as therapy responds to a recognition that t r a d i t i o n a l therapy, or theories that see only the i n d i v i d u a l as the target of change, may not o f f e r a l l the assistance needed for change. In the process of c l i e n t s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n through involvement i n s o c i a l groups, s o c i a l workers can provide healthy role models for c l i e n t s (Reisch, Wenocur, Sherman, 1981) . A number of disarmament writers also support the need f o r p o l i t i c a l action to channel anger into p o s i t i v e change (Caldicott, 1986; L i f t o n , 1982; Macy, 1979; P o l l i s , 1983). Thurlow (1982) d e t a i l s the hi s t o r y of survivors of Hiroshima, and notes that, when they joined together f o r mutual support and action, they gained a sense of mission, an increase i n self-concept and self-confidence, and were able to f i g h t o f f p a s s i v i t y and withdrawal. L i f t o n notes that there has been a loss of a sense of generativity and immortality i n our knowledge that the world may not be there for our children's children . In order to pass on a sense of the future, parents must come to believe i t e x i s t s for themselves as well ( L i f t o n , 1982). 18 "Where doom discourse addresses i t s audience as victims, disarmament discourse speaks to us as a c t i v i s t s : what i t maps i s not global devastation - the geography of Hiroshima m u l t i p l i e d a m i l l i o n f o l d - but l o c a l points of resistance and transformation; the workers at the Lucas Corporation planning t h e i r factory's switch from m i l i t a r y to c i v i l i a n production; the conversion of New Zealand, municipality by municipality, into a nuclear free zone; the subversiveness and c r e a t i v i t y of Greenham Women; the undermining of the Cold War i n myriad u n o f f i c i a l dialogues between peace a c t i v i s t s and dissenters from England and Hungary, Holland and Czechoslovakia, West and East Germany, the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R." (Witheford, 1986). Activism reformulates the problem from devastating holocaust to meaningful and manageable a c t i v i t i e s able to be grasped and c a r r i e d out by the i n d i v i u a l . FACTORS INFLUENCING AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE TO THE NUCLEAR THREAT: INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITY The nuclear disarmament l i t e r a t u r e influences individuals through a combination of t e r r i f y i n g prospects, factual s t a t i s t i c s and information, and an appeal to indi v i d u a l , cooperative, caring natures as well as a sense of commonality with the other peoples of the earth. Social workers, physicians, lawyers, educators, s c i e n t i s t s and ex-m i l i t a r y persons are involved i n nuclear disarmament, each from his/her own professional perspective. Theories of s o c i a l influence i n conjunction with our knowledge of ego psychology and s o c i a l work theory o f f e r some explanations fo r i n d i v i d u a l response to a s i t u a t i o n of threat. Factors which may influence an i n d i v i d u a l to act include: 1. the seriousness of a s i t u a t i o n ; 2. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for action; 3. a b i l i t y to act; and 4. sense of personal e f f i c a c y . 19 1. Seriousness. A number of factors are involved i n judgement about the seriousness, emergency, or threat i n a given s i t u a t i o n . Aronson (1984) notes that a tendency to help i n a s i t u a t i o n of threat i s increased when the occasion can be c l e a r l y defined as an emergency and a decision can be made that the threat i s important. In the case of the threat of nuclear war, the environmental cues are ambiguous and subject to some argument; indivduals tend to look around to see whether others think the s i t u a t i o n i s serious before committing themselves to action. The theory of group dynamics (Lewin as c i t e d i n Zimbardo et a l , 1977, p. 62) and the theory of s o c i a l comparison (Festinger, 1957) both suggest that the reference groups to which individuals belong have a major influence on t h e i r b e l i e f s , attitudes, and behaviours through t h e i r need f o r acceptance, approval and recognition, and through t h e i r need to compare themselves to others i n order to evaluate t h e i r opinions, attitudes and talents (Zimbardo et a l , 1977). A reference group can be used to influence i n d i v i d u a l perceptions that a s i t u a t i o n i s serious and involvement i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s through i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with a respected group member and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of group goals. Permanence of the behaviour can then be increased i f the in d i v i d u a l makes a firm commitment to continue to intera c t with that person or group. As well, these r o l e models w i l l influence the way indi v i d u a l s perceive the world through modelling active 20 responses to the issue, i d e n t i f y i n g important environmental cues, defining the s o c i a l reference points, and defining the s i t u a t i o n as an emergency (Zimbardo et a l , 1977; Aronson, 1984). In the case of nuclear war, i n d i v i d u a l s might also look to the response of an i n s t i t u t i o n a l authority such as t h e i r professional association, t h e i r government, and t h e i r employer (Aronson, 1984). In the Yale attitude change approach (Hovland as c i t e d i n Zimbardo et a l , 1977), acceptance of a communication i s predicated on a number of factors, including c r e d i b i l i t y of the information source. To be credible, the source of communication must be perceived to have reputation and prestige (Aronson, 1984), expertise, trustworthiness, sound judgement, competence, attractiveness, good w i l l , and altruism (Zimbardo et a l , 1977). C r e d i b i l i t y increases i n d i r e c t proportion to the amount a communication may a c t u a l l y be, i n fact, counter to the best i n t e r e s t s of a p a r t i c u l a r communicator. For example, s c i e n t i s t s and the m i l i t a r y are credible anti-nuclear messengers because of t h e i r expertise i n the area and the "discontinuity between t h e i r messages and the apparent int e r e s t s of t h e i r professions" (Aronson, 1984; p. 78). In a judgement about the seriousness of a threat, the nature of the information given i s important, and c e r t a i n kinds of information are evaluated d i f f e r e n t l y i n deciding whether a s i t u a t i o n i s serious. Using a Yale attitude change 21 approach, l o g i c a l , r a t i o n a l arguement i s frequently used i n attempting to influence commitment to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . The approach suggests that a person's emotional reaction (attitude) towards a p a r t i c u l a r object can be al t e r e d by a l t e r i n g the opinions or b e l i e f s (cognitive or knowledge component) about the object. Only four items are necessary f o r attitude change: attention, comprehension, acceptance, and retention (Zimbardo et a l , 1977). This approach assumes that, given good, objective information, i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l accept the view that the threat of nuclear war i s an emergency requiring immediate and sustained action. Many of the disarmament communications from science and the m i l i t a r y f a l l into t h i s category: they o f f e r r a t i o n a l argument, facts and s t a t i s t i c s (Pentz, 1983; pp.54-573; Halsted, 1983; Falk, 1983; C a r r o l l , 1983; Ellsberg, 1983). While i t might suggest a strong cognitive argument i n some circumstances, research on persuasion indicates that information attempting to influence behaviour should also have an aspect of emotional arousal (Aronson, 1984), and possibly a fear component (Leventhal, 1970). As well, a v i v i d personal example i s e a s i l y remembered and c a r r i e s more persuasive weight than l o g i c alone (Aronson, 1984). Li t e r a t u r e on the e f f e c t s of the bombing on the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki i s both graphic and personal (Hersey, 1946; L i f t o n , 1967). 22 The argument for action i n a time of threat may be taken more seriously, however, when the information includes a c l e a r "fear" message combined with e f f e c t i v e recommendations for action. Recommendations or instructions that appear to have a good chance of success reduce the dissonant nature of the communication, removing much of the individual's need f o r ego defenses l i k e avoidance and denial. Messages with a fear content and no prospects for protective action appear to disrupt coping s k i l l s and create resistence to persuasion (Leventhal, 1970). However, awareness of danger combined with a perception of e f f e c t i v e preventive action may serve as a motivator for acceptance of the serious nature of the communication and a motivator to action (Leventhal, 1970). Aronson argues that such communication has, in fact, happened i n the 1980's through the combination of fear messages and d i r e c t i o n s f o r action. Since 1980, individuals throughout the world have become frightened i n an activated way because of the combination of films and dramatizations of nuclear war and the Nuclear Freeze Proposal. Begun i n 1980, t h i s proposal set the information i n understandable terms, offered s p e c i f i c goals and recommendations for action, and provided an i d e n t i f i e d focus (Aronson, 1984; p.86). Arguments from cognitive dissonance theory by Festinger (1957) indicate that i n d i v i d u a l s cannot tolerate the uncomfortable tension created by the discrepancies between d i f f e r e n t and c o n f l i c t i n g cognitions. Pressure to reduce 23 dissonance i n some way increases according to the importance of the dissonant cognitions. Consequently, disarmament l i t e r a t u r e appeals to the dissonance between the cognition, "I love and protect my family," and "Nuclear arms threaten them with a h o r r i b l e death." As well, the l i t e r a t u r e attempts to increase the r a t i o of dissonant to consonant elements i n the cognitions i n order to increase the need to i d e n t i f y the threat as serious and to take action to reduce dissonance (Zimbardo et a l , 1977). In the absence of a s p e c i f i c focus, there can be int e r n a l pressure to ignore information about the nuclear threat by simply declaring i t i r r e l e v a n t to one's l i f e (Zimbardo et a l , 1977). 2. P e r s o n a l o r p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a c t i o n . When an i n d i v i d u a l cannot assume that someone else w i l l take care of the danger, helping behaviour i s increased; when i t i s easy to remove oneself p h y s i c a l l y or emotionally from the scene, helping behaviour i s lessened (Aronson, 1984). Relevancy of the communication to one's professional p r a c t i c e , oneself and one's family tends to increase a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In l i k e manner, a perceived mutuality or commonality with other individuals i n danger increases an in d i v i d u a l ' s sense of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to act (Aronson, 1984). Nuclear disarmament l i t e r a t u r e i s consistent i n i t s message of oneness with the planet and a l l i t s inhabitants as well as the breaking down of stereotypes through professional and public exchanges, twin c i t i e s , "pen-twinning," etc (Hoffmann, undated; Araki, 1986). 24 The assumption that one i s supposed to act may be more important i n some circumstances than the receipt of s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s on how to act. With an assumption that one i s supposed to act, the fear l e v e l at the time of communication i s then of l i t t l e consequence (Leventhal, 1970). In fact, i n a s i t u a t i o n of personal threat, unless a compelling deterrent e x i s t s , people who anticipate danger prefer to act rather than do nothing (Leventhal, 1970). In addition, the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of a number of values or attitudes towards action may also influence a f e e l i n g of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Certain professional or occupational groups have codes of ethics and a number of i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t values governing r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for certa i n behaviours i n sit u a t i o n s of perceived threat to cl i e n t s / p a t i e n t s / p u b l i c . A strong i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with one's professional reference group, therefore, may influence the e f f e c t of the profession on an individual's sense of personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for action. I f one's reference group can garner a small commitment from an i n d i v i d u a l , that individual may be more l i k e l y to increase that commitment as time passes. A small commitment that e n t a i l s some reasonably free expression of support f o r a stance can encourage both attitude and further behaviour change, since individuals tend to f i n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n to believe what they say (Aronson, 1984). Once a small 25 commitment i s made, individuals tend to be more receptive to increasing t h e i r a c t i v i t y . Peace marches may f a l l into t h i s category. For example, Aronson states that the fastest way to r a d i c a l i z e people i s to place them on a picket l i n e . 3. The knowledge and a b i l i t y to act. Knowledge of what can be done immediately to begin to counter a threat i s necessary before an individual can act, and i s a component of deciding to act (Leventhal, 1970). The nuclear disarmament l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r s s p e c i f i c suggestions for action, from opening the topic for discussion with one's c l i e n t s / p a t i e n t s and colleagues to strategies for "noncooperation with nuclearism" (Woodworth, 1987). As well, knowledge of the area i n which one i s intending to act i s important so as to increase understanding and thus commitment to the cause, counter dissonant communication from others, counter the dissonance of decision-making through finding additional information supportive of one's choice, and increasing the attractiveness of the chosen a l t e r n a t i v e and reducing the attractiveness of the unchosen option (Aronson, 1984). Dif f e r e n t professional groups have organized around the p r i n c i p l e that they have unique s k i l l s and/or knowledge to place i n the nuclear disarmament arena. S c i e n t i s t s give advice to disarmament groups and municipal authorities (Pentz, 1983); r e t i r e d N.A.T.O. generals write a r t i c l e s against the expansion or use of nuclear arms (Bastian, 26 1986); lawyers apply the Nuremburg Pledge to the threat of nuclear war (The Ploughshares Monitor. December 1986) ; and physicians speak about atmospheric t e s t i n g and medical response a f t e r nuclear war (Perry, 1986; Physicians f o r Social Responsibility handout, undated). Psychologists and Educators write on the e f f e c t s of the nuclear threat on children, and Alexander (1983) suggests a s o c i a l work nuclear disarmament program based on the p r i n c i p l e s of conscientization (consciousness-raising of people, s e l f -education, university peace studies, and looking at m i l i t a r i s m from a policy, s o c i a l j u s t i c e , environmental, moral, and peace perspective), c o a l i t i o n (through strong a f f i l i a t i o n s essential i n s o c i a l movements), and conversion (both m i l i t a r y and economic) (in Lundy, 1987). A perception that one has the a b i l i t y to act also includes an assessment of the cost of helping. Even when a s i t u a t i o n i s defined as an emergency, people tend to help l e s s when the cost of helping i s high (Aronson, 1984). Cost may be counted personally, f i n a n c i a l l y , or p r o f e s s i o n a l l y ; a c t i v i t y may be perceived to be r e s t r i c t e d or impeded by the necessity to expend resources that might otherwise be used to deal with issues of competing p r i o r i t i e s or to endure s o c i a l sanctions such as personal or professional l o s s of status (Steiner, 1970; Zimbardo et a l , 1977; Dean, 1986). Costs may simply be reckoned i n terms of the energy one has to give to a c t i v i t y outside of work or family time (Desmarnis et a l , 1987). S o c i a l learning (Zimbardo et a l , 27 1977) suggests that behaviour i s determined i n large part by the expected consequences of that behaviour. Disarmament a c t i v i s t s frequently count consequences versus costs i n terms of the p o t e n t i a l l y serious consequences of not acting. 4. Sense of personal e f f i c a c y . In addition to weighing the costs of assistance, i n d i v i d u a l s consider the benefits t h e i r action w i l l bring. If people believe that there i s a good chance that t h e i r a c t i v i t y w i l l create a favourable outcome, they w i l l tend to act much more quickly (Aronson, 1984). Likelihood of favourable outcome increases the attractiveness of an uncertain outcome; outcomes we know we cannot have are devalued (Steiner, 1970). For some nuclear disarmament a c t i v i s t s , i t has been h e l p f u l for them to look at the holocaust of nuclear war in smaller portions. In t h i s way, the picture i s manageable, t h e i r normal professional s k i l l s have immediate u t i l i t y , and they can see the immediate e f f e c t of t h e i r labours. Examples of d i v i d i n g nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s into manageable pieces include f i g h t i n g the apathy cycle (Woodworth, 1987), a s s i s t i n g individuals to work through despair (Macy, 1979), teaching or developing peace c u r r i c u l a , teaching material on negotiation and c o n f l i c t r esolution, o f f e r i n g information about prejudice and violence (Dalby, 1986), and producing compendia of peace c u r r i c u l a and peace bibliographies (Wien, 1984). 28 A t t r i b u t i o n theory implies that i f one has been active i n change (Aronson, 1984) and sees oneself as an e f f e c t i v e person, then an i n d i v i d u a l i s more l i k e l y to assume some form of action (Bern, 1970). Conversely, a perception of vested authorities as implacable and unmoveable would tend to i n h i b i t one's action. Bernard, Ottenberg, and Redl (1977) see part of the stress of l i v i n g i n a technological, bureaucratic, and nuclear age as coming from an increased perception that one i s personally unimportant and r e l a t i v e l y helpless, and a b e l i e f that one i s powerless i n response to decisions made about larger issues. In Dean (1987) and i n a p i l o t study by Desmarnis et a l (1986), professional respondents i d e n t i f i e d a range of issues giving them a f e e l i n g of being under attack: they also noted t h e i r personal sense of powerlessness and helplessness i n the face of the nuclear threat. A perception of oneself as an active change agent (what one does can be e f f e c t i v e i n changing the s i t u a t i o n of threat) i s c r i t i c a l i n mobilizing an i n d i v i d u a l ' s energy f o r change. Without hope, individuals w i l l not act (Steiner, 1970). Helplessness or hopelessness, the f e e l i n g that one cannot avoid e i t h e r the fear or the danger, paralyzes the w i l l to act (Leventhal, 1970). An i n a b i l i t y to cope with fear leads to avoidance reactions and f a i l u r e to take action. While in d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r i n capacity to cope with s t r e s s f u l circumstances, b e l i e f i n one's a b i l i t y to cope increases the l i k e l i h o o d of action (Leventhal, 1970). Leventhal also 29 suggests that i n d i v i d u a l differences i n coping a b i l i t i e s related to self-esteem do not i n h i b i t performance when a l l persons have s p e c i f i c action in s t r u c t i o n s . While people with low self-esteem who have to act immediately are seemingly overcome by a high fear message, self-esteem does not a f f e c t behaviour when individ u a l s are shown how to cope and how to take protective action (Leventhal, 1970; Aronson, 1984). In summary, i t appears that a number of factors may encourage remedial action i n response to a s i t u a t i o n of threat. Theories of s o c i a l influence suggest that a credible communicator who i s a l l i e d with one's p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l or professional reference group and who o f f e r s a message with a fear component and concrete i n s t r u c t i o n s should e l i c i t maximum a c t i v i t y i n response to a s i t u a t i o n of threat as long as the cost of helping i s not too p r o h i b i t i v e and the chance of a favourable outcome i s high. The purpose of t h i s research i s to look at the relat i o n s h i p of these factors to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . PROBLEM STATEMENT Do the selected factors of seriousness, personal or professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for action, knowledge and a b i l i t y to act, and b e l i e f i n one's personal e f f i c a c y influence s o c i a l workers' nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y ? CHAPTER I I : METHOD This study involved a province-wide sample of members of the B r i t i s h Columbia Association of Social Workers (B.C.A.S.W.), and was one i n a series of four student research projects undertaken over a two year period at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia School of Social Work, including Mather (1986), Desmarnis et a l P i l o t Study (1986), and Desmarnis et a l Course Documentation (1987). The research sought to expand upon the e a r l i e r studies by investigating s o c i a l workers' attitudes toward nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s . As i n other studies, an attempt was made to obtain information on s o c i a l workers' present nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and a ranking of nuclear disarmament as a s o c i a l work issue compared to other s o c i a l work issues. In addition, the research examined some factors that could influence respondents' nuclear disarmament attitudes and a c t i v i t y : perceived seriousness or relevance of the threat, knowledge of how to respond to the threat, a b i l i t y to take action, perceived cost of a c t i v i t y , and a b e l i e f that one's actions could make a difference. RESEARCH DESIGN The research design was c a r r i e d out by means of a mail survey. The l e v e l of research design was that of a des c r i p t i v e study and did not attempt to test a hypothesis. Rather, i t sought to answer a research question and to help 31 b u i l d a complete and accurate picture of s o c i a l workers int e r e s t i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y ( S e l l i t i z , Wrightman, and Cook, 1976). The study also considered the rela t i o n s h i p between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y and factors that may influence attitudes and action i n response to a threat. SAMPLING DESIGN The population of interest for t h i s study was s o c i a l workers belonging to the B.C.A.S.W. throughout the province of B r i t i s h Columbia. The population was chosen for two reasons. F i r s t , the study was done under the auspices of the B.C.A.S.W. Task Force on Social Work and the Peace Movement; second, the population was e a s i l y accessible through the membership f i l e s of the association. For several reasons, a pro v i n c i a l survey of B.C.A.S.W. members was deemed more appropriate than a metropolitan Vancouver survey. B.C.A.S.W. board members from outside the metropolitan areas of the province expressed concern that studies of urban members did not r e f l e c t the views of the whole membership; e a r l i e r studies (Mather, 1986; Desmarnis et a l 1986 and 1987) a l l focussed on metropolitan area s o c i a l workers. There was some discussion from r u r a l board members that t h e i r colleagues might view issues d i f f e r e n t l y from urban members because they have fewer professional services from the association, less opportunity to meet with 32 professional colleagues, fewer t r a i n i n g opportunities, and a more s e l f - r e l i a n t and independent approach to s o c i a l issues. As i t was considered useful to generalize the re s u l t s to a l l B.C.A.S.W. members, the study sought to avoid the t e s t i n g of a non-representative sample (Grinnell, 1981). Because urban B.C.A.S.W. members were being studied i n two other peace/nuclear disarmament research projects during the 1986-87 academic year, t h e i r names were removed from the B.C.A.S.W. membership l i s t before sampling for the study began. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was maintained by r e s t r i c t i n g access to the previous studies' samples to the researcher for the purpose only of removing sampled names from the master membership l i s t . In the Mather study, a l l respondents were from the metropolitan Vancouver area, and 29 of 42 respondents were B.C.A.S.W. members. Access to that sample l i s t was not available. For mechanical s i m p l i c i t y , the kind of p r o b a b i l i t y sampling used was systematic or i n t e r v a l sampling i n which a random name i n the f i r s t nine B.C.A.S.W. members was picked and then every eighteenth member's name was taken without regard for branch or geographical area. A population of f i f t y - f i v e individuals was chosen to represent an adequate sample of B.C.A.S.W. members. Each was mailed a questionaire, a return card, and two separate stamped self-addressed envelopes for separate return of the questionnaire and card. Since the card requested t h e i r 33 names for purposes of further debriefing, the return of card and questionnaire was separated i n order to ensure anonymity. C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y was maintained by r e s t r i c t i n g access to sample names and return cards to the researcher. I t was accepted that the mailing of questionnaires with no personal contact between the researcher and respondent might r e s u l t i n a lower return rate than that from personal interviews. A two-month data c o l l e c t i o n period was expected with an i n i t i a l 10%-50% response rate ( S e l l i t z et a l , 1976). F i f t y - f i v e questionnaire packages were mailed out and t h i r t y - t h r e e return cards and t h i r t y - f o u r questionnaires (62%) came back. Of these, thirty-one questionnaires (56% of those s o l i c i t e d ) were completed and three were blank. As there was no follow-up to non-respondents, however, the r e s u l t s cannot be generalized to the population. INSTRUMENTATION The questionnaire (Appendix E) covered two main areas: respondents' attitudes towards the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, and factors that might influence a c t i v i t y . The examples of p o t e n t i a l impediments to action were taken primarily from spontaneous l i s t i n g s by respondents i n the Desmarnis et a l P i l o t Study (1986) and s o c i a l issues were determined from issues noted by these same respondents. 34 The instrument used for data c o l l e c t i o n was a semi-structured questionnaire. Most questions were fix e d responses with a few open-ended "other" categories. Additionally, comments on the i n d i v i d u a l questions or the questionnaire as a whole were s o l i c i t e d . The research used information gathered from the Mather (1986) survey and the Desmarnis et a l P i l o t Study (1986) project i n order to improve the instrument. The Mather questionnaire was used for Desmarnis et a l P i l o t Study (1986), and both respondents and student interviewers provided a c r i t i q u e of i t . In response to that c r i t i q u e , the thesis instrument placed demographic information l a s t on the questionnaire, added the "not applicable" category to the Likert-type scale, and deleted separate scales for personal and professional attitudes or views. Nominal, ordinal, and Likert-type i n t e r v a l scales were used i n the questionnaire. In the Likert-type scale, respondents were de l i b e r a t e l y offered an odd number of possible responses on the continuum so that people could c l e a r l y indicate t h e i r ambivalence or fence s i t t i n g ( G r i n n e l l , 1981). As well, a "N/A" category was added fo r respondents who had no opinion. Rank ordering was not used due to the d i f f i c u l t y of execution for respondents and time needed for completion. 35 The mail-out questionnaire format was dependent upon the motivation of the respondent and the amount of e f f o r t required to complete i t . However, the questionnaire could be completed i n a reasonably short time period and, therefore, i t was f e l t that many respondents would be w i l l i n g to take the time to complete i t (Sudman, 1985). A pretest was conducted by o f f e r i n g the questionnaire to members of the undergraduate research class involved i n studying the same subject and to interested faculty of the U.B.C. School of Soc i a l Work. Access to these subjects was arranged through Dr. John Crane of the School of Social Work. Students and fa c u l t y indicated no problems i n completing the instrument with regard to content or wording, but some modification of the scale of indi v i d u a l questions and format was undertaken i n response to feedback from the pre-test group. Questions related to strategies f o r use by the B.C.A.S.W. were part of a report to the B.C.A.S.W. and not a part of the thesis. The study d i d not d i r e c t l y r e p l i c a t e any of the previous studies i n the s e r i e s . The other studies i n t h i s s e r i e s used the following instruments: 1. Mather (1986), a questionnaire; 2. Desmarnis et a l P i l o t Study (1986), Mather's questionnaire and a standardized open-ended interview guide; and 3. Desmarnis et a l (1987), a questionnaire using many of the same questions as t h i s one. 36 The focus i n previous studies such as the r e l a t i o n s h i p of peace and nuclear disarmament to other s o c i a l issues, respondents' attitudes towards peace and nuclear disarmament, t h e i r l e v e l s of personal a c t i v i t i e s , and strategies for use by B.C.A.S.W. were made part of the present study with the deletion of any reference to "peace." Student researchers and respondents to Desmarnis et a l P i l o t Study (1986) both f e l t that peace was a separate issue from nuclear disarmament; respondents could be for one but against the other. I t i s important to note, however, that the disarmament c o a l i t i o n s i n Canada are a l l part of the Canadian Peace A l l i a n c e and the worldwide peace movement, and do not make the d i s t i n c t i o n noted here. As well, while the defenders of the arms race appeal to arguments that the arms race keeps the peace, there i s no equivalent "peace" movement on a grass roots l e v e l among these advocates. Some of the items of the measuring instrument were designed to e l i c i t the desired information based on information presented i n l i t e r a t u r e on factors causing indiv i d u a l s to respond to a s i t u a t i o n of threat (See Chapter I ) . Questions 1:1, 6, and 7, and 11:1 were designed to measure perceived seriousness, personal and professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , knowledge and a b i l i t y , and b e l i e f that one's action could make a difference (Zimbardo et at, 1977; Aronson, 1984). 37 Questions I:1(A) and (E) inquired into respondents' perceptions of the seriousness of the threat and were designed to measure l e v e l of fear about nuclear war (Leventhal, 1970; Aronson, 1984). Questions I:1(B), (G), and (H) were intended to measure personal and professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for action: respondents' perception of the relevancy of the threat of nuclear war to themselves and the so c i a l work profession (Aronson, 1984). Question I:1(F) checked whether respondents who had been exposed to disaster planning had made the connection to professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a f t e r a nuclear war (Leventhal, 1970; Goresky, 1986; Carr, 1986). Item I:6(a) measured whether respondents saw nuclear disarmament as a s o c i a l work issue, while 1:7(g) and (h) asked whether respondents saw any personal relevancy i n ei t h e r s o c i a l advocacy or nuclear disarmament. Questions I:1(D) and I:6(e) asked whether respondents considered the s o c i a l work profession to have the knowledge to speak out about the s o c i a l issues involved i n the nuclear arms race (Hirsche, 1986). Questions 1:8 & 9 looked at the response to the "peace voter pledge card" i n order to t e s t whether s p e c i f i c i n structions for action made a difference to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . Questions 1:7(d) and (f) measured respondents' perceptions of knowing enough about the issue to act (Leventhal, 1970). The perceived cost of 38 helping was looked at by several questions: I:6(b), (g), I:7(b) - competing p r i o r i t i e s ; I:6(c) and (d), and I:7(i) -negative sanctions; I:6(f) and 1:7(c) - limited resources, and I:6(i) - no impediments (Steiner, 1970; Zimbardo et a l , 1977) . Questions I:1(C), and 7(a) and (e) were intended to capture respondents' perceptions about a p o t e n t i a l l y favourable outcome to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y (Aronson, 1984; Steiner, 1970; Bernard et a l , 1977; Leventhal, 1970). Question 1:5 measured nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s to f i n d any c o r r e l a t i o n between a c t i v i t y and the measures for seriousness, personal and professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , knowledge and a b i l i t y , and b e l i e f that one's action could make a di f f e r e n c e . Question 11:2 was intended to find out whether respondents perceived personal e f f i c a c y i n other areas of service to t h e i r profession or community (Aronson, 1984; Bern, 1970). LIMITATIONS Unintentionally, i n s u f f i c i e n t return postage was placed on return envelopes for the questionnaires. Of those questionnaires returned, twelve a r r i v e d "postage due," two arr i v e d with additional postage added by respondents, and twenty a r r i v e d without action by e i t h e r postal authorities or respondents. The researcher maintained a forwarding address with the post o f f i c e for nine months to ensure a l l 39 questionnaires were delivered to a new address a f t e r the academic year ended, and arrangements were made with the l o c a l Vancouver sub-post o f f i c e and the l o c a l mail c a r r i e r responsible for forwarding mail to guarantee payment of outstanding postage due by the researcher. The return rate of questionnaires was 62%. Of those questionnaires, 56% were f i l l e d out and the remainder were blank, a respectable response f o r a study of t h i s nature. However, the s p e c i f i c e f f e c t , i f any, of i n s u f f i c i e n t postage i n preventing questionnaire return remains unknown. The r e s u l t s of the survey could not be generalized outside the B.C.A.S.W. membership as there were no studies found by the researcher on the difference between those i n d i v i d u a l s l a b e l l e d as s o c i a l workers but not belonging to a professional s o c i a l work association and those i n d i v i d u a l s belonging to a professional s o c i a l work association. Another poten t i a l weakness of the study, alluded to by some respondents apparently c r i t i c a l of anti-nuclear a c t i v i t i e s , was that s o c i a l l y desirable answers (in favour of a n t i -nuclear a c t i v i t i e s ) might be indicated by the very nature of the questionnaire. As well, Bern (1976) noted that the process of f i l l i n g out a questionnaire could a l t e r b e l i e f s or attitudes towards the issue, and might a l t e r attitudes simply by r a i s i n g consciousness. Andrews and Kohn (1985) indicated that a respondent could not dismiss nuclear disarmament when seen on a questionnaire even though s/he 40 might not think about the subject spontaneously. Mather (1986) suggested that when an a c t i v i t y i s undertaken under the auspices of the professional association, members w i l l be more l i k e l y to consider i t as an important s o c i a l work issue. Consequently, the study may have changed s o c i a l workers consciousness of the issue and biased them i n favour of nuclear disarmament as an issue for s o c i a l work action. VALIDITY The l i t e r a t u r e suggested that a high response rate (even with a small sample) had more v a l i d i t y than a larger sample but low percentage of returned responses ( S e l l i t z et a l , 1976), since a low return rate could bias the r e s u l t s : the respondents might be only those members with a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n the subject, either pro or con, and the responses could not be guaranteed to cover a broad range of members' opinion ( S e l l i t z et a l , 1976; Monette et a l , 1986). In t h i s case, a 56% return rate i s adequate. Sudman (1985) noted that busy professionals were often reluctant to take part i n a mail survey where the topic area was not noticeably relevant and/or the instrument did not allow f u l l expression of opinion. As well, academic studies often had "s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower cooperation rates" (Sudman, 1985; p.352). 41 External v a l i d i t y or adequate response rate was addressed i n several ways. In considering Sudman's suggestions for increasing the response rate, f i v e methods were used: inc l u s i o n of a personalized cover l e t t e r from the executive d i r e c t o r of the B.C.A.S.W. and the chairperson of the B.C.A.S.W. Task Force on Social Work and the Peace Movement, a copy of a write-up on s o c i a l work peace a c t i v i t i e s from The Social Worker, a one-page explanation of the study from the researcher acknowledging that nuclear disarmament was a complex issue not e a s i l y captured by a short questionnaire (see Questionnaire Package, Appendix E), and the provision of stamped, self-addressed return envelopes. As well, respondents received instructions to add comments as needed to q u a l i f y or explain t h e i r answers. Ad d i t i o n a l l y , regional representatives to the board were given information about the study so they could answer questions about sponsorship i f approached by respondents i n t h e i r l o c a l areas. Sensitive items about future directions of the B.C.A.S.W. board were avoided and questions were pertinent to the issues at hand (Grinnell, 1981). Respondents were s p e c i f i c a l l y requested to return both the return card and the questionnaire regardless of t h e i r desire to become participants i n the study. I f they wished to make t h e i r views on non-participation known to the researcher, they were encouraged to add comments regarding t h e i r preference to r e f r a i n from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study. 42 I t was recognized that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the present study-could cause emotional stress for the participants, and the return card served the dual purposes of id e n t i f y i n g those parti c i p a n t s wishing further debriefing or information, as well as creating a more favourable return rate. Pre-testing the instrument to check wording, content, question order and design was also intended to improve the response rate. The B.C.A.S.W.'s Executive Director and President of the Board then reviewed the entire research package with a s p e c i f i c view to improving posi t i v e respondent impressions of appearance and presentation. Internal v a l i d i t y was addressed by attempting to make items as cl e a r as possible i n order to reduce measurement error, pretesting the instrument for c l a r i t y using indiv i d u a l s who were not included i n the f i n a l study, avoiding questions asking more than one thing at a time, avoiding negative items, and using language well within the l i m i t s of the projected respondents (Grinnell, 1981). As well, the questionnaire used closed-ended questions which were simple and easy to answer, and easy to code. Additional space for write-i n answers was offered i n order to ensure that respondents would not be unduly li m i t e d by the closed questions. 43 V a l i d i t y was improved by having questions about respondents' a c t i v i t i e s cover only the eighteen months previous to the study. While an accurate l i s t i n g of a c t i v i t i e s over a longer time period might have given a more complete picture than events noted i n the short term, respondents were asked about present community a c t i v i t i e s and nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s of the recent past, rather than reconstructed events over a long time period. The v a l i d i t y of items that measured concrete events which could be observed d i r e c t l y (such as number of a c t i v i t e s over the past 18 months) was not then considered to be a problem of major s i g n i f i c a n c e . However, the v a l i d i t y of items measuring abstract constructs such as attitudes was more d i f f i c u l t . Consequently, the study was intended to a s s i s t researchers in the gradual, incremental process of building a knowledge base about the attitudes of s o c i a l workers toward nuclear disarmament, rather than as an end i n i t s e l f . That i s , i t was intended to correlate with other measures of the same abstract construct of attitudes and expand the richness of the construct, rather than to o f f e r d e f i n i t i v e answers. The questionnaire was somewhat longer than optimum f o r a maximum response rate. However, the increased number of items and scoring categories on some questions improved the r e l i a b i l i t y of the measure. Keeping i n mind the law of diminishing returns, i t was decided that i n t h i s case i t would be better to have too many items than too few 44 ( G r i n n e l l , 1981). R e l i a b i l i t y was also based on the examples of questions and information provided by the two previous studies i n the s e r i e s . Construction of the questionnaire was based on information concerning the areas of focus of previous studies and the examples of questionnaire items of past studies. 45 CHAPTER l i l t RESULTS A t o t a l of 55 questionnaires was sent out and 34 returned. Data were obtained from (31) 56% of the t o t a l , with three blank questionnaires returned. Thirty-three return cards were received, and f i f t e e n of these asked for follow-up discussion. Thirty-one of the return cards were received i n separate return envelopes and two arrived with the respondents' questionnaires. A l l returned questionnaires arr i v e d within a t h i r t y - f i v e day period. While the researcher cannot know whether a l l completed and mailed questionnaires were received, the r e s u l t s suggest that the p r o b a b i l i t y of missing data was r e l a t i v e l y low given the the correspondence between the numbers of return cards and questionnaires. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, histograms, and univariate descriptive s t a t i s t i c s measuring central tendency and v a r i a b i l i t y . As well, biv a r i a t e analysis of variance using crosstabulation and Pearsons' Rho c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t were used, with a l l s t a t i s t i c s analyzed using the U.B.C. S.P.S.S.X. s t a t i s t i c a l package. Multiple regression analysis was not used because of the small sample si z e . DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Rspondents ranged i n age from 30 to 71 years, with an average age of 45.7 years. Nine (26%) of the respondents were male and twenty-two (71%) were female. 46 Whereas approximately 81% of members on the December, 1987 membership t a l l y were R.S.W.'s, a l l respondents to the study were registered (social workers) with t h e i r highest degrees or t r a i n i n g including: one PhD, ten MSW's, four MA's, seven BSW's, s i x BA's, one community College certificate/diploma, one-two year U.K. School of Social Work c e r t i f i c a t e , and one BSc. Twelve of the respondents d i d not have formal s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g . Paid and volunteer experience were separated for c l a r i t y of data. Volunteer experience was very broadly defined, but only the years in which the respondents had not also worked i n s o c i a l work employment were counted. Volunteer experience ranged from none to t h i r t y years with an average of four years. Paid employment i n s o c i a l work ranged from 1 to 46 years, with an average of 16.5 years. A weakness of the data was the lack of the names of respondents' employers. Consequently, occupational data by job t i t l e and des c r i p t i o n were not exact. Generally, i t appeared that seven people worked i n the B.C. Ministry of Social Services and Housing or closely related agencies, including c h i l d protection, foster and adoption services, and services to the mentally handicapped. Five of the seven had more than 12 years paid experience and one of those had 23 years paid experience. Five persons indicated that they worked i n the 47 Ministry of Health or related agencies, including three g e r i a t r i c s o c i a l workers, one long-term care and one psy c h i a t r i c s o c i a l worker. Four of the f i v e had 13 to 18 years paid experience. Five respondents noted that they were employed i n private s o c i e t i e s or i n s t i t u t i o n s : two hospital s o c i a l workers with 22 and 28 years paid experience, two workers i n i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r the mentally handicapped with 10 and 12 years paid experience, and one s o c i a l worker i n an agency f o r disturbed childre n with 28 years paid experience. Three respondents i n private practice had 15, 19, and 20 years paid experience respectively. Two persons were r e t i r e d , three unemployed, and two worked in non-social work f i e l d s . One respondent was a teacher of s o c i a l work with 37 years paid experience. None of the respondents were students. Twenty individuals or 65% of respondents indicated that they had children (and grandchildren i n some cases). Greater Vancouver Branch received fewer questionnaire packages than i t s membership share because persons contacted by the other two studies during the 1986-87 academic year were deleted from the membership l i s t before sampling. A number of respondents did not know t h e i r B.C.A.S.W. branch; four were not categorized because they had not provided data enabling the researcher to do so. Other respondents were assigned branches by the researcher through clues from the answer to the B.C.A.S.W. branch question or t h e i r other 48 comments. Given the unassigned and excluded respondents, the returned questionnaires were consistent with the pattern of B.C.A.S.W. membership i n the province (See Table 1(a) -Appendix C: "Percentage and Number of Respondents by Branch"). 1. Factors Under Consideration. a) Seriousness: Forty-three percent of respondents were concerned "a l o t " to "a great deal" about the e f f e c t s on Canada of a nuclear attack, while another 39% were "somewhat" concerned (See Table I following). Five persons (18%) were concerned "very l i t t l e " or "a l i t t l e . " (See Table 2(a) - Appendix C f o r complete Section I. Question 1. responses: "Consciousness of Nuclear Disarmament Issues"). Over three-quarters of respondents (77%) indicated that survival of the world was dependent on stopping the nuclear arms race "a l o t " to "a great deal." One respondent commented, "I believe that nuclear disarmament i s a (THE) surv i v a l issue f o r the human race. How can that conceivably not involve people who happen to be involved i n the s o c i a l work profession!!" 50 Issues that tended to impact more d i r e c t l y on s o c i a l workers' c l i e n t s ( c h i l d abuse, poverty, family violence, mental i l l n e s s , addictions, and the handicapped) were generally rated as higher i n importance than nuclear disarmament by most respondents, whereas larger s o c i a l issues ( c i v i l l i b e r t i e s , minority r i g h t s , and Native issues) were seen as equal or lower i n importance by approximately one-half of respondents. Ten of 31 respondents rated a l l other s o c i a l issues higher i n importance than nuclear disarmament, while one rated a l l s o c i a l issues lower and two rated a l l other s o c i a l issues of equal importance. Two respondents did not answer the question and two respondents rated two of the issues. Fourteen respondents indicated mixed ratings of importance. b) Personal or professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : TABLE I I I ; MEASURES OF PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (Rating scale: 1. very l i t t l e ; 2. a l i t t l e ; 3. somewhat; 4. a l o t ; 5. a great deal) Responses Item Mean/Median 1-2 3 4-5 Professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y % % % Issues facing the world 4 4 13 22.5 64.5 $ spent on arms race 4.2 4 6 6 87 Adverse e f f e c t s c l i e n t s 1.9 1 67 17 17 Community di s a s t e r plan 3.6 4 20 20 60 Personal relevance Adverse e f f e c t s family 2.1 1 62 21 17 Adverse e f f e c t s s e l f 2.1 2 67 17 17 51 P r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A b e l i e f that global s o c i a l issues were as important to s o c i a l work as the s o c i a l issues facing an i n d i v i d u a l or community was true "a l o t " to "a great deal" f o r 64.5% or twenty respondents. Eighty-seven percent of respondents (27) stated that money spent on the arms race took money away from s o c i a l programs "a l o t " to "a great deal". As well, four respondents (13%) believed nuclear disarmament was not a s o c i a l work issue. Fi f t e e n of twenty-four respondents (62.5%) reported seeing "very l i t t l e " adverse psychological e f f e c t s on t h e i r c l i e n t s of l i v i n g under the "nuclear threat," while one respondent (4.5%) reported "a l i t t l e " adverse e f f e c t . With regard to community disaster planning, only f i v e respondents (16%) had been approached to take part i n t h e i r community d i s a s t e r plan. Of the f i v e persons contacted, three of the f i v e said they r e a l i z e d the importance of s o c i a l work pr a c t i c e issues i n coping with the r e s u l t s of a nuclear war "a l o t " or "a great deal." P e r s o n a l r e l e v a n c e . F i f t e e n of twenty-nine respondents (52%) saw "very l i t t l e " adverse e f f e c t on t h e i r f a m i l i e s , while another three respondents (10%) reported "a l i t t l e " e f f e c t . Fourteen respondents (45%) also saw "very l i t t l e " adverse e f f e c t on themselves, with s i x others (22%) seeing "a l i t t l e " adverse e f f e c t , and one person responding that the question was not 52 applicable. In addition and not noted i n the table, no respondents stated they were not interested i n s o c i a l advocacy, and only two (6%) indicated they were not interested i n nuclear disarmament. c) The knowledge and a b i l i t y to act: Concrete i n s t r u c t i o n s . As part of a p o l i t i c a l campaign by the B.C.A.S.W Task Force on So c i a l Work and the Peace Movement and the End The Arms Race C o a l i t i o n , approximately eight hundred "Peace Voter Pledge Cards" were included i n a regular monthly mailing to s o c i a l workers by the B.C.A.S.W. The pledge card offered concrete instructions f o r action by r e c i p i e n t s . Seven respondents remembered receiving a pledge card and f i v e f i l l e d out and returned i t . One of the f i v e added a f i n a n c i a l contribution. Of the two remaining respondents receiving the pledge card, one indicated she meant to sign i t but didn't and the other said i t was thrown away. I t was unknown how many respondents may have received a card, but had thrown i t away without seeing or recognizing i t . Knowledge. Thirty-nine percent of respondents saw s o c i a l workers as q u a l i f i e d to speak about the e f f e c t s of the arms race on human beings and t h e i r environment "a l o t " to "a great deal," with a further 35% responding "somewhat." The mean was 3.4 and the median was 3 "somewhat." 53 TABLE IV; MEASURES OF KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY TO ACT. Item Percentage r e s p o n d i n g Knowledge Not knowing most e f f e c t i v e way to be involv. 55% Not knowing enough to take stand 6% Soc. Wkrs. having nothing unique to o f f e r 16% R e s o u r c e s Too busy to be involved 26% B.C.A.S.W. lack $ resources to be involved 52% N e g a t i v e s a n c t i o n s Negative p u b l i c i t y for s o c i a l work prof. 13% Too p o l i t i c a l an issue for soc. wrk. prof. 13% Too r a d i c a l 0 Competing p r i o r i t i e s No impediments to B.C.A.S.W. a c t i v i t y 28% B.C.A.S.W. more pressing S.W. problems 52% B.C.A.S.W. more pressing issues 52% N.D. unimp. compared other advoc. issues 19% Limited resources. Comments from respondents: " I t ' s hard to get too excited about disarmament a c t i v i t i e s when you are working a l l the time!" "I have a limi t e d amount of time & energy & choose with care my freetime a c t i v i t i e s , while I am interested i n nuclear disarmament, i t i s not my top p r i o r i t y . " "This issue i s les s important i n comparison to other s o c i a l advocacy issues for my current energy l e v e l . " d) P e r s o n a l E f f i c a c y : Forty-eight percent of respondents agreed world leaders could be influenced to agree to disarmament "a l o t " or "a great deal," and a further 22.5% indicated an ambivalent "somewhat." Seven persons f e l t t h i s issue was too overwhelming to think about and two thought i t was a 54 hopeless cause. Comments included opinions that nuclear disarmament was too b i g an issue to tackle. One respondent sa i d : "I have chosen to spend my time working i n an area where I think my e f f o r t s can have a more positive & immediate a f f e c t . " Another added: "On the l e v e l of day to day immediacy: on the l e v e l of immediate effectiveness and return for time and energy and money, the nuclear disarmament issue and movement just does not produce r e s u l t s . Nuclear Disarmament A c t i v i t y . The f i r s t three a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d below were considered to be neutral i n terms of indivi d u a l s feeling t h e i r actions would make a difference, and were not considered to indicate any intent to change public opinion or policy. P a r t i c i p a -t i o n i n the other nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s was considered to indicate both an intent to change policy and b e l i e f that one's actions could make a difference. Nearly one-third of a l l respondents had taken part i n a recent peace walk, and nearly o n e - f i f t h had written l e t t e r s about nuclear disarmament or attended workshops or seminars i n the past eighteen months. 55 TABLE V; RESPONDENTS'NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITY Respondents A c t i v i t y Number Percentage family discussions discussions with colleagues watching a f i l m 20 17 13 65% 55% 42% peace walks l e t t e r w r i t i n g workshops or seminars button/bumper s t i c k e r N.D. group or c o a l i t i o n fund-raising walks 10 6 6 4 3 1 32% 19% 19% 13% 10% 03% no N.D. a c t i v i t y 4 13% Community A c t i v i t y . Community a c t i v i t y was considered to indicate a sense of personal effectiveness. Most respondents were active i n t h e i r l o c a l communities and some were responsive to in t e r n a t i o n a l s o c i a l advocacy agencies. F i f t y - e i g h t percent of respondents were on boards of directors of community agencies and 39% were involved i n non-board volunteer work with community agencies. Twenty-nine percent participated i n a s o c i a l action group and 48% offered f i n a n c i a l and other support f o r int e r n a t i o n a l s o c i a l advocacy agencies. In a l l , seventeen persons (55%) were involved i n two or three a c t i v i t i e s , and f i v e more (16%) participated i n four or more a c t i v i t i e s . Nine persons (29%) reported none or one community or s o c i a l advocacy a c t i v i t y . 56 2. Correlation between the factors that may influence  a c t i v i t y i n a s i t u a t i o n of threat and reported nuclear  disarmament a c t i v i t i e s by respondents: a) Seriousness: The r e s u l t s showed a ne g l i g i b l e relationship between concern about the e f f e c t s on Canada of a nuclear attack and the numbers of nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s in which respondents engaged. A n e g l i g i b l e relationship was also found between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and a b e l i e f that the su r v i v a l of the world was dependent on stopping the nuclear arms race. A low negative relationship was found between the numbers of nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n by respondents and t h e i r rating of other s o c i a l issues as higher i n importance than nuclear disarmament (r =-.43351), but a n e g l i g i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p existed with rating other issues as lower or equal i n importance to nuclear disarmament. b) Personal or professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : TABLE V I : CORRELATION BETWEEN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITIES  AND PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Items C o r r e l a t i o n P e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y P earsons Rho Adverse e f f e c t s of nuclear threat on family r=.39599 Adverse e f f e c t s of nuclear threat on s e l f r=.44401 P r o f e s s i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y S o c i a l issues facing the world as a whole r=.41237 Arms race takes money from s o c i a l programs r=.39912 Involvement i n community disaster plan r=.49099 Adverse e f f e c t s of nuclear threat on c l i e n t s r=.37403 57 Personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . There was a low posit i v e relationship between the numbers of nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n by respondents and the l e v e l of concern about adverse psychological e f f e c t s on t h e i r families (r =.39599), or themselves (r =.44401). As well, a n e g l i g i b l e negative rela t i o n s h i p was found between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and the statement "I'm not interested i n nuclear disarmament." Professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . There was a low posit i v e relationship between disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and the following: b e l i e f that s o c i a l issues facing the world as a whole were as important to s o c i a l work as the s o c i a l issues facing an in d i v i d u a l or community (r =.41237), and b e l i e f that money spent on the arms race took money away from s o c i a l programs (r =.39912). There was a low posit i v e relationship between the nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n by respondents and t h e i r l e v e l of concern about adverse psychological e f f e c t s (attributable to l i v i n g under the nuclear threat) on t h e i r c l i e n t s (r =.37403). A low-moderate po s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p (r =.49099) was found between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and involvement of respondents i n t h e i r community di s a s t e r plans. 58 c) The knowledge and a b i l i t y t o a c t : TABLE VII: CORRELATION BETWEEN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT  ACTIVITIES AND KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITY TO ACT. Items Correlation Knowledge Pearsons Rho Social workers q u a l i f i e d to speak r= .54164 Limited resources B.C.A.S.W. lacks f i n a n c i a l resources r=-.31028 Competing p r i o r i t i e s No impediments to B.C.A.S.W. a c t i v i t y r= .63844 B.C.A.S.W. should pursue more pressing S.W. pbms. r=-.50075 B.C.A.S.W. has more pressing issues r=-.54836 Nuc.dis. unimportant i n comparison to other issues r=-.25258 Knowledge. There was a moderate p o s i t i v e relationship of a c t i v i t y to b e l i e f that s o c i a l workers were q u a l i f i e d to speak about the effe c t s of the arms race on human beings and t h e i r environment (r=.54164). There was a ne g l i g i b l e p o s i t i v e relationship between a c t i v i t y and thinking that one doesn't know enough to take a stand, as well as between a c t i v i t y and not knowing the most e f f e c t i v e way to be involved. There was a n e g l i g i b l e negative rel a t i o n s h i p between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and b e l i e f that s o c i a l workers had nothing unique to contribute to exi s t i n g disarmament groups. L i m i t e d resources. There was a n e g l i g i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c t i v i t y and fee l i n g one was too busy, and a low negative r e l a t i o n s h i p with a b e l i e f that the B.C.A.S.W. lacked f i n a n c i a l resources to be involved (r =-.31028) 59 Negative sanctions. No respondents said nuclear disarmament was too r a d i c a l , and there was a negli g i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c t i v i t y and the b e l i e f that nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s could cause negative p u b l i c i t y for the s o c i a l work profession. Competing p r i o r i t i e s . There was a moderate po s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p (r =.63844) between the b e l i e f that there were no impediments to B.C.A.S.W. involvement with nuclear disarmament and nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s by respondents. There was a moderate negative relationship between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y and the b e l i e f that the B.C.A.S.W. should pursue more pressing s o c i a l work problems (r =-.50075). As well, there was a moderate negative r e l a t i o n s h i p (r =-.54836) with the b e l i e f that B.C.A.S.W. had more pressing issues. There was a n e g l i g i b l e negative rel a t i o n s h i p (r =-.25258) between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and b e l i e f that t h i s issue was unimportant i n comparison to other s o c i a l advocacy issues. d) Personal e f f i c a c y : There was a low positive r e l a t i o n s h i p between disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and b e l i e f that world leaders could be influenced to agree to disarmament (r =.43506). There were n e g l i g i b l e 60 relationships between a c t i v i t y and f e e l i n g t h i s issue was too overwhelming or a hopeless cause. As well, the sum of community a c t i v i t i e s had a n e g l i g i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s . 61 C H A P T E R I V : D I S C U S S I O N Except for the study series by Beardsley and Mack (1982), who looked at children over a twenty year span from the early 1960's, l i t t l e was known about the psychological e f f e c t s of the nuclear arms race p r i o r to the 1980's. Research, f i r s t on children and l a t e r on adults, began to explore those e f f e c t s , and i n the 1980's, research on children was conducted i n the U.S.A., Canada, Sweden, and U.S.S.R. The primary data on adults, however, have been from opinion p o l l s . Andrews and Kohn (1985) appear to have done the f i r s t studies on s o c i a l workers and nuclear disarmament, but they researched how well s o c i a l workers understood or predicted the l e v e l of fear and anxiety about nuclear war i n t h e i r c l i e n t s . At t h i s time, i t appears that the only available research on s o c i a l workers' attitudes toward nuclear disarmament has been conducted at the U.B.C. School of So c i a l Work. This study ser i e s was c a r r i e d out over a two-year period by three graduate and twelve undergraduate students under the d i r e c t i o n of D r . John Crane. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA In discussion of t h i s data, a v a i l a b l e data from the three other studies i n the U.B.C. School of S o c i a l Work 1986-87 series were used. Because the findings of Mather (1986) were generally outside the parameters of the other three studies, a question was raised about the nature of the 62 samples and comparability of the data: none of the samples was exactly the same, and only two of the samples f i t random sampling methods. As well, the f i r s t two studies researched both peace and nuclear disarmament and the l a s t two studies looked only at nuclear disarmament. The Mather (1986) study on peace and nuclear disarmament was s e l f - s e l e c t e d : the sample was s o l i c i t e d from s o c i a l work students and s o c i a l workers i n the Vancouver area, and those who responded may have had a s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t i n peace or disarmament. The Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study on peace and nuclear disarmament was c a r r i e d out with B.C.A.S.W. members who were i d e n t i f i e d by the association as being active on i t s committees and who l i v e d i n Greater Vancouver or the Lower Fraser Valley. The Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study examined nuclear disarmament using a true random sampling method by drawing each name from the common sample of B.C.A.S.W. members i n Greater Vancouver. Follow-up to a l l respondents who received questionnaires was done i n order to pick up the questionnaires. The t h e s i s study on nuclear disarmament used a form of random sampling ( i n t e r v a l sampling) of B.C.A.S.W. members i n B.C. There was no way of knowing how a s e l f - s e l e c t i o n process may have worked i n the t h e s i s study because follow-up to non-respondents was not done. Some of the completed questionnaires had very negative comments, however, and i t appeared that some of 63 those respondents who were against nuclear disarmament action by the B.C.A.S.W. decided to respond. One respondent from the study summed up h i s feelings with, "Now, at l a s t we can put t h i s issue to r e s t . " I t was also notable that while the male/female s p l i t of both the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study and the thesis study were very s i m i l a r to that of the B.C.A.S.W. membership, the Mather (1986) research had a somewhat lower r a t i o of women to men, and the Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study came from a sample that was almost h a l f male and half female. This l a t t e r suggests a disproportionate number of male B.C.A.S.W. members may become active i n the association. Data from the thes i s study were sorted urban or r u r a l through B.C.A.S.W. branch information. "Urban" was i d e n t i f i e d as Greater Vancouver, V i c t o r i a , and South Vancouver Island; " r u r a l " was determined to be a l l other areas of the province. Because some of the ru r a l branches were inactive, i t seemed reasonable that r u r a l respondents might have been le s s l i k e l y to know t h e i r branches than urban members. Consequently, data were analyzed by both including and deleting the unknown and non-branch data with the r u r a l sample. The unknown or non-branch responses were consistent with the r u r a l sample; therefore, because of the 64 small N, unknown and non-branch were sorted into the r u r a l . I f branch information i s useful on future studies i t would be h e l p f u l to provide a che c k l i s t of branches for respondents to t i c k o f f . In t h i s study, only 55.5% of the urban respondents compared to 77% of the r u r a l respondents indicated they had children. The percentage of urban respondents with children (and/or grandchildren) was s i m i l a r to Desmarnis et a l (1987), an urban study. FACTORS UNDER CONSIDERATION a) Seriousness: While most respondents (82%) were "somewhat" to "a great deal" concerned about the e f f e c t s of a nuclear attack on Canada and declared t h e i r strong b e l i e f that the survival of the world depended on stopping the nuclear arms race, these concerns d i d not translate into nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s . Both active and inactive respondents acknowledged t h e i r concern. Leventhal (1970) argued that fear without instructions for protective action disrupted coping s k i l l s and hindered action to counter the threat. The more nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s respondents engaged i n the l e s s l i k e l y they were to agree that a l l other s o c i a l issues were higher i n importance f o r association action than nuclear disarmament. This r e l a t i o n s h i p may have been due to a number of factors. A t t r i b u t i o n theory suggested that i n d i v i d u a l s tended to f i n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n to believe what 65 they said and did (Aronson, 1984); cognitive dissonance theory implied that indi v i d u a l s may reduce t h e i r dissonance from choosing nuclear disarmament over other s o c i a l issues by b e l i e v i n g that what they chose to do had more importance (Festinger, 1957). As well, a c t i v i t y might have changed attitudes (Bern, 1970). While the majority of respondents rated some immediate s o c i a l issues such as c h i l d abuse, poverty and family violence higher i n importance for association action than nuclear disarmament, less than one-third rated a l l other s o c i a l issues higher i n importance than nuclear disarmament and very few (less than one i n five) stated that nuclear disarmament was unimportant i n comparison to other s o c i a l issues. The respondents' ambivalence was stated c l e a r l y i n t h e i r comments, such as " i t ' s [Nuclear disarmament] not unimportant but...." Some respondents stated that nuclear disarmament simply couldn't be rated against other s o c i a l issues. Spontaneous comments from respondents to Desmarnis et a l (1986 & 1987) were consistent with those from the t h e s i s study concerning the day-to-day p r i o r i t i e s that may have taken precedence f o r s o c i a l workers i n the f i e l d : basic c l i e n t needs for food and shelter, l o c a l issues and c l i e n t family c r i s e s were noted i n a l l three studies. Individuals also noted the connection between these c l i e n t issues and the larger s o c i a l i l l s of poverty and unemployment (Dean, 1987; unpublished research course documentation). The connection to global issues was not as clear i n comments, 66 and i t was unclear i f respondents may have answered the question d i f f e r e n t l y i f i t had not linked the importance of s o c i a l issues ( r e l a t i v e to nuclear disarmament) to action by the professional association. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , the most active association members, respondents to the Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study, appeared to be more focussed on association issues and the image of s o c i a l work as a profession. That i s , respondents were very concerned that the association project a p o s i t i v e , professional, credible image i n a l l i t s a c t i v i t i e s . A sense of powerlessness as i n d i v i d u a l s o c i a l workers and as a profession was pervasive i n respondent responses to the interviews conducted as part of that study. In order to gain the power to create change, respondents suggested that s o c i a l workers must "build a strong, credible professional association both through a l l actions i d e n t i f i e d i n the public mind as "SOCIAL WORK" and through c o a l i t i o n s which give s o c i a l workers the opportunity to increase t h e i r power by j o i n i n g with credible groups to e f f e c t change" (Dean, unpublished q u a l i t a t i v e research course project, 1987; p.14). b) Personal or professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : The majority of respondents recognized that global s o c i a l issues were important and that the nuclear arms race had adverse e f f e c t s on s o c i a l service spending. Respondents overwhelmingly disagreed (87%) with the statement that nuclear disarmament was not a s o c i a l work issue. There seemed to be a gap, however, between seeing the connection 67 and a c t u a l l y acting. Relevant knowledge about the deleterious e f f e c t s of the nuclear arms race was not, by i t s e l f , enough to create action (Aronson, 1984; Leventhal, 1970). Aronson (1984) stated that action was more l i k e l y when an i n d i v i d u a l believed no one else would act, and Leventhal (1970) suggested that a b e l i e f that one was supposed to act might be c r i t i c a l to taking action i n an emergency. While s o c i a l workers have i n t e r n a l i z e d a number of values about t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to act i n response to community s o c i a l issues, there may as yet be no values about action on an international l e v e l . While there was not a strong relationship between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y and those attitudes, active respondents showed more awareness of personal and professional issues than inactive respondents. Respondents appeared to be unaware of the relevance of the nuclear threat to t h e i r own practice (Zimbardo et a l , 1977). Andrews and Kohn (1985) were consistent with the findings that s o c i a l workers were not very aware of the fears and anxieties t h e i r c l i e n t s may have had about the threat of nuclear war (67% of respondents saw "very l i t t l e " or "a l i t t l e " adverse e f f e c t ) . Mather (1986) reported that s o c i a l workers were reluctant to include nuclear war i n c l i e n t assessments. While the relationship between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and awareness of the e f f e c t s on c l i e n t s was low, active respondents were more aware than non-active respondents. They were also more aware of the negative e f f e c t s on t h e i r families and themselves. Most 68 respondents saw "very l i t t l e " to "a l i t t l e " adverse e f f e c t on themselves (67%) or t h e i r families (62%). One explanation for t h i s might be the presence of psychic numbing or denial (Lifton, 1982; Gould et a l , 1986). In the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study, respondents were asked i f they saw any eff e c t of nuclear disarmament issues on t h e i r families. Fifty-three percent of seventeen respondents completing the question i n Desmarnis et a l (1987) answered affirmatively, with some respondents including extensive supportive or explanatory comments. The difference i n responses between the two studies raised some questions: was t h i s a difference i n consciousness about nuclear disarmament issues, a difference i n consciousness about psychological e f f e c t s , or a difference i n how the questions were constructed? In Desmarnis et a l (1987), the question s o l i c i t e d a "yes"-"no" answer plus comments; i n the thes i s study, respondents were offered a Likert-type scale. As well, "families" were not defined i n either questionnaire, and respondents' interpretations may have included adult and/or minor children, families of o r i g i n , and/or those individuals r e s i d i n g i n the same household i n a fa m i l y - l i k e environment. Since a l l respondents agreed they were interested i n s o c i a l advocacy and only two were not interested i n nuclear disarmament, the lack of action was s t r i k i n g . Inactive 69 respondents may not have been aware i n a way that led to action because they did not have c l e a r instructions about how to act or see action as t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Leventhal, 1970; Aronson, 1984). While N was small, the low-moderate r e l a t i o n s h i p between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and recognition of the implications of a community's disaster plan was i n t e r e s t i n g because d i s a s t e r planning offered s o c i a l workers a concrete role and a professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , as well as g i v i n g s p e c i f i c planned responses to disaster (Emergency Planning Canada, 1986; Leventhal, 1970). The peace movement disapproves of c i v i l defense planning because i t i s an inappropriate response to the threat of nuclear war. However, l i k e physicians, s o c i a l workers, given a concrete p o s s i b i l i t y , seemed to expand the d i s a s t e r planning r o l e to include nuclear war. The issue was no longer ambiguous or i r r e l e v a n t (Aronson, 1984). c) T h e knowledge and a b i l i t y to act: Concrete i n s t r u c t i o n s . Those respondents who reported receiving the "Peace Voter Pledge Card" were a l l urban s o c i a l workers not noticeably d i f f e r e n t from the rest of the sample; they d i d not report more nuclear disarmament or community a c t i v i t i e s than other respondents. I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to note that while approximately 58% of B.C.A.S.W. members (given 1987 membership rates) should have received the cards, only 13% 70 of respondents to the study remembered seeing them, and those respondents were a l l urban s o c i a l workers. While there was no way of accounting f o r possible reasons for t h e i r remembrance of receiving the cards, t h e i r responses to the Peace Voter Pledge campaign, or the lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p between those responses and other nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y , i t appeared that the campaign was successful i n gaining s p e c i f i c commitments from those recipients who remembered receiving the card. That i s , f i v e of seven recipien t s f i l l e d out and returned the card, and one included a f i n a n c i a l donation. Aronson (1984) and Leventhal (1970) suggested that o f f e r i n g s p e c i f i c instructions i n a s i t u a t i o n of threat would increase active behaviour i n response to the threat. Knowledge. Be l i e f that s o c i a l workers were q u a l i f i e d to speak on relevant arms race issues related to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y (r=.54164). While b e l i e f that s o c i a l work had something unique to say did not r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to a c t i v i t y , both active and in a c t i v e respondents (84%) overwhelmingly disagreed with the statement that s o c i a l work had nothing unique to o f f e r . There was l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p , however, between a c t i v i t y and a b e l i e f that one had enough knowledge about nuclear disarmament. Those respondents who were active didn't f e e l any more confident about t h e i r knowledge than inactive 71 respondents did. The findings of the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study were consistent with those of the thesis study suggesting some respondents were not involved i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y because they didn't know the most e f f e c t i v e way to be involved. Twice as many respondents to the t h e s i s study indicated they knew enough to take a stand (93.5%) compared to those who f e l t they knew enough to act (45%). However, approximately twice as many respondents to Desmarnis et a l (1987) compared to the thesis study indicated that they didn't know enough about the subject to take a stand. This difference may have related to the lower percentage of respondents who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n workshops and family discussions i n Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study. Limited resources. Somewhat more of the thesis sample than respondents to the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study thought the B.C.A.S.W. lacked the f i n a n c i a l resources to be involved i n nuclear disarmament, but respondents involved with nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y were les s l i k e l y to agree with that statement. Active or urban respondents were also l e s s l i k e l y to agree the B.C.A.S.W. lacked money to be involved. Being too busy was noted by both a c t i v e and ina c t i v e respondents as a drawback to involvement but was unrelated to a c t i v i t y . The Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study, however, was consistent with findings that approximately one-quarter of a l l respondents stated being too busy as an impediment to in d i v i d u a l involvement. 72 Negative sanctions. Desmarnis et a l (1987) was consistent with the findings that no respondents noted the issue being too r a d i c a l as a drawback to involvement. As well, that study found a sim i l a r small percentage of respondents agreeing that the p o s s i b i l i t y of negative p u b l i c i t y was a drawback to B.C.A.S.W. involvement. This was surprising given the strong themes i n the Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study of respondent concern about nuclear disarmament groups being too r a d i c a l or too p o l i t i c a l , and the comments i n Desmarnis et a l (1986 & 1987) and the thes i s study d e t a i l i n g concern with professional c r e d i b i l i t y and the pos i t i v e image of s o c i a l work. Here, as i n other parts of the questionnaire, some respondents outlined t h e i r ambivalence by marking s p e c i f i c answers to closed questions and then modifying or changing t h e i r stands i n comments that followed the question. Competing p r i o r i t i e s . Results from the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study were consistent with the findings that over one-fourth of respondents believed there were no impediments to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y by the B.C.A.S.W. This suggested there were a sizable minority of members who were, at the lea s t , neutral to involvement of the B.C.A.S.W. i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s . As well, some comments i n Desmarnis et a l (1986) suggested that there were a number of B.C.A.S.W. members non-active i n nuclear disarmament who 73 looked to the association to be active i n t h e i r steads. Active respondents showed a moderate rela t i o n s h i p between a c t i v i t y and b e l i e f that competing p r i o r i t i e s were not impediments to B.C.A.S.W. involvement. The moderate rel a t i o n s h i p s between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y and the b e l i e f that no impediments to B.C.A.S.W. a c t i v i t y existed, as well as between a c t i v i t y and disagreement with statements that the B.C.A.S.W. should pursue more pressing s o c i a l work problems or more pressing issues indicated that the issue of competing p r i o r i t i e s for the B.C.A.S.W. seems to have been resolved for many nuclear disarmament a c t i v i s t s (Zimbardo et a l , 1977). The Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study did not support the findings of the thesis study regarding the b e l i e f the B.C.A.S.W. had more pressing issues or the B.C.A.S.W. should pursue more pressing s o c i a l work problems. More than three times as many respondents (52%) compared to those responding to the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study (16%) f e l t the B.C.A.S.W. had more pressing issues; 52% of respondents i n the t h e s i s sample compared to 28% of respondents i n Desmarnis et a l (1987) believed the B.C.A.S.W. should pursue more pressing s o c i a l work problems. The Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study findings were much closer to data from the t h e s i s study for urban B.C.A.S.W. members. That i s , 39% of urban respondents to the thesis study f e l t the B.C.A.S.W. should pursue more pressing s o c i a l work problems and the B.C.A.S.W. had more pressing issues. These findings 74 suggested that urban respondents were less concerned about competing p r i o r i t i e s than r u r a l ones. A l l but two urban and two r u r a l respondents answered i n the same way to both questions. d) Personal e f f i c a c y : Nuclear Disarmament A c t i v i t i e s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and b e l i e f that world leaders could be influenced to agree to disarmament (r=.43506) may have related to a b e l i e f i n or hope of a favourable outcome (Aronson, 1984; Steiner, 1970; Bernard et a l , 1977). While most respondents to the thesis study did not f i n d nuclear disarmament too overwhelming to think about, a somewhat larger number of respondents (23%) to the th e s i s study did so compared to respondents i n Desmarnis et a l ' s (1987) urban study (16%). Desmarnis et a l (1987), however, was consistent with the findings of only a small percentage of respondents (6%) who f e l t nuclear disarmament was a hopeless cause. Because of the small numbers of respondents who agreed that nuclear disarmament was too overwhelming or a hopeless cause, the lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c t i v i t y and those b e l i e f s suggests that respondents did not acknowledge those b e l i e f s as a reason f o r non-activity and may not have acknowledged those feelings at a l l . Such denial and f a i l u r e to respond to the threat i s reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Mack, 1986; Li f t o n , 1982; Woodworth, 1987). 75 The amount and kind of nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y engaged i n may have also r e f l e c t e d respondent b e l i e f s that t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s could make a difference. For the purposes of t h i s research, the most committed a c t i v i t i e s were considered to be those requiring more e f f o r t : peace walks and fund-r a i s i n g walks, l e t t e r writing, workshops or seminars, and membership i n a nuclear disarmament group. Other a c t i v i t i e s were considered to e n t a i l a less a c t i v i s t stance. For example, the number of well advertised t.v. movies aired over the eighteen months previous to t h i s study may have increased the l i k e l i h o o d that uncommitted respondents would watch a f i l m or would take part i n discussions with family or colleagues. Roughly twice as many respondents from the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study purchased peace buttons and were members of a nuclear disarmament group compared to those responding to the th e s i s study. The Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study was consistent with the findings for urban thesis respondents who took part i n no nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s . Three times the number of r u r a l respondents took part i n no nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s . Partly because of the r u r a l sample, the study had a lower percentage of respondents taking part i n peace walks compared to the Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study and the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study. Unanswered questions about those a c t i v i t y patterns included a consideration of 76 whether t h i s difference was accounted for by the difference i n opportunity between rural and urban populations or a difference i n some unidentified c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of urban respondents versus r u r a l ones. Respondents to the thesis study took part i n more discussions than those from Desmarnis et a l (1986 & 1987). Roughly two-thirds of respondents to t h i s study indicated that they had participated i n family discussions about nuclear disarmament compared to approximately h a l f of those from the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study and one-quarter of those i n the Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study. Since Desmarnis et a l (1987) was conducted at the same time as t h i s study, the reason for the difference was unknown. Desmarnis et a l (1987) and Mather (1986) were consistent with the findings of the study on discussions with colleagues, with Desmarnis et a l (1987) and Mather (1986) f a l l i n g on eithe r side of the study findings. Desmarnis et a l (1987) also reported similar findings i n respondents watching f i l m s on nuclear issues. The Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study had sim i l a r findings to the the s i s study on respondents' membership i n disarmament groups, and the findings of the Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study f e l l approximately i n the middle between those two findings and Mather (1986). The results of the three other studies on 77 respondents who had written l e t t e r s a l l were consistent with the data. Par t i c i p a t i o n i n workshops by respondents to a l l four studies ranged from 12% to 25%, with the thesis study almost exactly i n the mid-range. The study was the only one of the four research projects to ask about community a c t i v i t i e s . Community a c t i v i t i e s were deemed relevant to the study because they might indicate which respondents were predisposed to a c t i v i t y as an e f f e c t i v e change action response. The lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and community a c t i v i t i e s l e f t an unanswered question about how a perception that one's a c t i v i t i e s would make a difference on a community le v e l translated beyond the community. Did the immediate community impact of s o c i a l issues relate to t h e i r highly v i s i b l e , unambiguous nature and clear d e f i n i t i o n by the community as an emergency, or to a sense of personal or professional ownership or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the solution to the problem because there was no one else to solve i t (Aronson, 1984). The l i t e r a t u r e supported comments from respondents indicating many of them had focussed on more manageable s o c i a l issues (Woodworth, 1987; Macy, 1979; Dalby, 1986). However, since nearly hal f of the respondents were involved with international s o c i a l advocacy agencies, there was a question about why i n t e r e s t i n nuclear disarmament did not translate into involvement with peace 78 organizations. Unlike the case of those not engaging i n any nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s , there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between urban and r u r a l respondents not engaging i n any community a c t i v i t i e s . SUMMARY There were no strong relationships between single items and respondents 7 nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y (See Appendix C). Low relationships were found between items of personal and professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and respondent nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y ; moderate relationships were found between some items of B.C.A.S.W. a b i l i t y to be involved and respondents' nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . However, most respondents saw nuclear disarmament as a s o c i a l work issue (87%) that was important i n comparison with other issues (81%), and for which s o c i a l workers had something unique to o f f e r (84%). They saw global s o c i a l issues to be as important as l o c a l ones "a l o t " to "a great deal" (64.5%) and money spent on the arms race as taking money away from s o c i a l programs "a l o t " to "a great deal" (87%). Measures of seriousness alone d i d not r e l a t e to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y , except that nuclear disarmament a c t i v i s t s were less l i k e l y to rate a l l other s o c i a l issues as higher i n importance for action by the B.C.A.S.W. (r=-.43351). 79 However, respondents saw very l i t t l e adverse psychological e f f e c t s on t h e i r c l i e n t s (62%), t h e i r families (52%) and themselves (45%). Measures of personal and professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or relevance had a low rel a t i o n s h i p to a c t i v i t y (Table VI i n Chapter three). While active respondents appeared to f e e l as unsure as inactive respondents about t h e i r own knowledge of nuclear disarmament issues and t h e i r knowledge of how to be involved i n disarmament a c t i v i t i e s , measures of B.C.A.S.W. a b i l i t y to act had the strongest rel a t i o n s h i p to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . That i s , respondents active i n nuclear disarmament tended to believe that there were no impediments to B.C.A.S.W. nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y (r=.63844); to believe that the B.C.A.S.W. should pursue more pressing s o c i a l work problems (r=-.50075) or more pressing issues (r=-.54836); and, to a lesser extent, to disagree that the B.C.A.S.W. lacked the f i n a n c i a l resources to be involved i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s (r=-.31028). As well, b e l i e f that s o c i a l workers were q u a l i f i e d to speak about the ef f e c t s of the arms race on human beings and t h e i r environment had a moderate r e l a t i o n s h i p to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y (r=.54164). In some cases, the lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p between a question or questions and nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y was notable. Action taken i n response to concrete instructions ( i . e . peace voter pledge cards) did not r e l a t e to other nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . This suggests that individuals may 80 have acted when they perceived they had concrete d i r e c t i o n s on how to act and the required action was not d i f f i c u l t , rather than acting because they had taken an active stance on nuclear disarmament. A respondent's perception of being too busy or having concerns about negative s o c i a l sanctions did not r e l a t e to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . Although l e s s than a t h i r d of respondents were involved i n committed nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s , only a few (13%) took part i n no nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y at a l l . Respondents indicated they were interested i n nuclear disarmament (94%), were not overwhelmed by i t (77.4%), d i d not think i t a hopeless cause (93.5%), and were not too busy to be involved (74%). However, such measures of personal e f f i c a c y had l i t t l e r e lationship to a c t i v i t y . A c t i v i s t s were, however, somewhat more l i k e l y than non-activists to believe that world leaders could be pursuaded to agree to disarmament. 81 CHAPTER V; CONCLUSIONS The study was conducted to look at some factors influencing s o c i a l workers' a c t i v i t i e s i n support of nuclear disarmament. The l e v e l of research design was that of a descriptive study; i t d i d not attempt to test an hypothesis but to obtain a measure of the views of a sample population, and increase the richness and v a r i e t y of the data being gathered i n a s e r i e s of studies. The central research question was: what factors influence nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y ? Data were obtained from thirty-one members of the B.C.A.S.W. v i a a semi-structured mail questionnaire. To allow for multiple regression techniques looking at the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a l l factors together and nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y , the sample size should have been larger than thirty-one. A c t i v i t y might have resulted from a combination of factors, rather than one factor i n i s o l a t i o n . Aronson (1984) saw action i n response to a threat to someone else as r e s u l t i n g from a combination of the emergency nature of the s i t u a t i o n and a sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y about taking action. Leventhal (1970) noted that action i n response to a personal threat appeared to r e s u l t from a combination of fear message and action instructions that caused one to act. Measures that implied seriousness might also have taken into consideration that, while an acknowedgement of seriousness seemed to be a perequisite to taking action, an expressed 82 worry about nuclear war may have decreased as an ef f e c t of taking action (Woodworth, 1987; Berger Gould, Moon, Van Hoorn, 1986). Thus, questions that attempted to measure anxiety about the threat of nuclear war i n order to determine respondent perceptions about the seriousness of the threat may not have adequately captured the desired information. Future research with a more sophisticated instrument might confirm i f the measures used to test those factors were accurate enough to a c t u a l l y capture that data or whether they measured something else that also had some re l a t i o n s h i p to nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . The sample appeared to be representative of the membership of the B.C.A.S.W. in d i s t r i b u t i o n by sex and branch. Comparability between the four studies i n the series, however, was l i m i t e d by differences i n the sampling methods, the samples, the measuring instruments, and the research questions of the four. While there were problems of comparability, the d i f f e r e n t data c o l l e c t i o n methods had the benefit of capturing a greater richness and variety of s o c i a l workers' opinions. Results showed that there were both differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s between respondents of t h i s study and the three other student studies at U.B.C. Except f o r peace walks, respondents to Mather (1986) consistently showed higher l e v e l s of a c t i v i t y than those from the other three studies. These r e s u l t s may have been due to the s e l f - s e l e c t e d nature of the sample. Desmarnis et a l (1987) generally supported the findings of t h i s study. 83 The Research Question: Factors influencing i n d i v i d u a l nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y . There were some rela t i o n s h i p s i n d i v i d u a l l y between respondents' nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s and measures of perceived seriousness, personal and professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , knowedge and a b i l i t y to act, and a b e l i e f that one's actions would make a difference. Respondents to t h i s study who were active i n nuclear disarmament had some tendency not to rate other s o c i a l issues as higher i n importance than nuclear disarmament, to be more aware of the adverse psychological e f f e c t s of l i v i n g under the threat of nuclear war, to believe world leaders might be influenced to agree to disarmament, to think s o c i a l issues facing the world as a whole might be as important to s o c i a l work as those facing an in d i v i d u a l or community, and to believe money spent on the arms race took money away from s o c i a l programs. There was a moderate r e l a t i o n s h i p between nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y and a b e l i e f that s o c i a l workers were q u a l i f i e d to speak about the ef f e c t s of the arms race on human beings and t h e i r environment, and a low-moderate r e l a t i o n s h i p of a c t i v i t y to respondents having been involved i n t h e i r community di s a s t e r plans. There was also a moderate tendency for respondents involved i n ind i v i d u a l nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y to believe there were no impediments to B.C.A.S.W. involvement with nuclear disarmament, to disagree with the idea the B.C.A.S.W. should 84 pursue more pressing s o c i a l work problems, as well as with the suggestion that the B.C.A.S.W. had more pressing issues. A l e s s e r r e l a t i o n s h i p existed between individual a c t i v i t y and a disagreement that the B.C.A.S.W. lacked the f i n a n c i a l resources to be involved i n nuclear disarmament. Some writers have raised concerns that s o c i a l workers are ambivalent and inconsistent with a lack of consensus i n t h e i r attitude toward peace (Alexander, 1983; Mather, 1986). As well, s o c i a l work a c t i v i s t s i n nuclear disarmament have expressed concern that s o c i a l work i s under-represented and have argued that s o c i a l workers and t h e i r associations must become more involved. I t may be, however, that ambivalence and lack of consensus on peace or nuclear disarmament re l a t e s more to the nature of s o c i a l work than s p e c i f i c a l l y to the nature of s o c i a l workers attitudes towards peace or nuclear disarmament. That i s , there appears to be some ambivalence and lack of consensus i n s o c i a l work on many issues, not ju s t on nuclear disarmament. Respondents were inconsistent i n t h e i r answers to both Desmarnis et a l (1987) and the thesis study, with some comments appearing to disagree with t h e i r responses to closed questions. Many of the respondents q u a l i f i e d t h e i r answers and changed or broadened the context of the questions, in d i c a t i n g that a structured questionnaire could not capture the complexity of t h e i r attitudes and feelings about s o c i a l work and nuclear disarmament. 85 This may mean that, i n looking at s o c i a l workers' attitudes toward the threat of nuclear war, research may have to attempt to deal with the issue on several l e v e l s . F i r s t , there i s a p o l i t i c a l dimension to nuclear disarmament; second, s o c i a l workers are also dealing with t h e i r own psychic numbing and endemic stress; t h i r d , peace and nuclear disarmament are complex issues that do not stand alone; fourth, nuclear disarmament may not be comparable to other issues dealt with by s o c i a l workers; f i f t h , the nature of s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y i s an unknown; and s i x t h , members of the B.C.A.S.W. do not a l l agree about the role and function of the association. 1. There i s a p o l i t i c a l dimension to nuclear disarmament. In looking at nuclear war i n conjunction with some of the factors that encourage an individual to act i n a s i t u a t i o n of threat, i t i s important to recognize that the s i t u a t i o n won't be automatically defined as unambiguous or an emergency by every s o c i a l worker, given the broad range of s o c i a l workers' p o l i t i c a l opinion and b e l i e f by some s o c i a l workers that nuclear war w i l l never happen. As well, i n a p o l i t i c a l sense, nuclear deterrence may be seen as necessary to maintain peace, rather than as a threat to peace. Only when physicans were confronted with the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of dealing with the magnitude of physical and emotional trauma a f t e r a nuclear war, did they begin to s h i f t the issue from the p o l i t i c a l to the professional (Caldicott, 1982). 86 2. Social workers are also dealing with t h e i r own psychic numbing and endemic stress. Respondents were not very aware of the effe c t of the threat of nuclear war on t h e i r c l i e n t s , t h e i r families, or themselves, and generally did not see the c l i n i c a l counselling issues involved. They were not generally favourable to questioning c l i e n t s about nuclear anxieties or tr a i n i n g s o c i a l workers i n the c l i n i c a l issues involved. This suggested that psychic numbing and denial were l i k e l y present f o r many respondents and, by implication, for many members of the B.C.A.S.W. Psychic numbing has implications for the task force i n i t s e f f o r t s to interest B.C.A.S.W. members i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y , and implications for s o c i a l work practice. However, t h i s avoidance and lack of awareness may act u a l l y allow s o c i a l workers to deal with the endemic stress of s o c i a l work practice ( P o l l i s , 1985). That i s , focussing on day-to-day p r i o r i t i e s and "business as usual" may allow s o c i a l workers to distance themselves enough to respond to more s o c i a l issues and greater s o c i a l problems on a d a i l y basis. I t may, however, also have some profound implications for the self-awareness needed f o r purposeful involvement i n s o c i a l work and therapeutic interventions, and may rel a t e over time to burnout and lack of effectiveness as a worker (Lifton, 1967; Macy, 1979). 87 3. Peace and n u c l e a r disarmament are complex I s s u e s t h a t do not s t a n d a l o n e . The responses of ambivalence and lack of consensus that are discussed by Alexander (1983) and Mather (1986) may have resulted at lea s t p a r t i a l l y from the complexity of peace and nuclear disarmament issues. The f i r s t two studies considered peace and nuclear disarmament, while the l a t t e r two looked at nuclear disarmament only. Because researchers i n the Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study noted that no respondents were against peace and findings i n that study indicated that respondents had d i f f e r e n t opinions about peace than they did about nuclear disarmament, the the s i s study and Desmarnis et a l (1987) focussed on nuclear disarmament only. The range of opinion about nuclear disarmament by respondents i n the studies was complex and related to t h e i r attitudes, and b e l i e f s about other issues. Some respondents' b e l i e f s about peace or nuclear disarmament also involved value stances about war, non-violent c o n f l i c t resolution, u n i l a t e r a l , b i l a t e r a l or m u l t i l a t e r a l nuclear disarmament, mi l i t a r i s m and the attendent s o c i a l problems of poverty, unemployment, and human ri g h t s v i o l a t i o n s . For respondents, nuclear disarmament ranged from banning of a l l uses of nuclear power to concern only with actual manufacture and use of nuclear weapons. 88 4. Nuclear disarmament may not be comparable to other issues dealt with by s o c i a l workers. Several respondents i n the thes i s study indicated they had d i f f i c u l t y i n rat i n g nuclear disarmament as an issue against other s o c i a l issues. Some respondents struggled to explain t h e i r feelings that while nuclear disarmament i s not unimportant, day-to-day c l i e n t s u r v i v a l concerns could not be compared to an issue that formed a part of the overriding environmental context. One respondent, a Quaker, indicated that nuclear disarmament was a part of the value stance inherent i n her b e l i e f s and couldn't be separated from them as an issue. When respondents were t r y i n g to sort out t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s among various s o c i a l issues, there appeared to be two general themes i n comments about nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y : one, the consequences of nuclear war were so t e r r i b l e that s o c i a l workers couldn't not be involved i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y or, two, that the day-to-day p r i o r i t i e s of s o c i a l work were too pressing for s o c i a l workers to d i v e r t energy from t h e i r c l i e n t s ' immediate survival concerns to a p o t e n t i a l problem that might never happen. The way i n which respondents dealt with the r e l a t i o n s h i p of nuclear disarmament to other issues caused some v a r i a t i o n i n answers. For example, some comments suggested that respondents may have answered by comparing nuclear disarmament to other s o c i a l issues or problems f o r most questions, while other respondents appeared to answer most 89 questions i n i s o l a t i o n considering nuclear disarmament only. I t would be h e l p f u l for future surveys of t h i s kind to note that many s o c i a l workers do not wish to divorce one issue from others. 5. The nature of s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y i s an unknown. The nature of s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y i s s t i l l being explored, and findings may explain the lack of i d e n t i f i e d s o c i a l work disarmament groups. Social work l i t e r a t u r e speaks about the professional issues that may hinder development of a sense of consensus among s o c i a l workers, and a question i s raised about the r e l a t i o n s h i p of i d e n t i t y to desire f o r i d e n t i f i e d s o c i a l work action groups or to a c t i v i t y undertaken by the association (Polansky, 1961; Washington, 1982; Weinbach, 1982; Specht, 1976; Meyer, 1961; Minahan, 1982). In the f i r s t study (Mather, 1986), respondents were questioned about t h e i r personal and professional attitudes separately, and Mather found l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between personal and professional attitudes. These findings lead her to question whether respondents had a " s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y " or saw s o c i a l work merely as a route to employment. Desmarnis et a l (1986), which sampled active B.C.A.S.W. members, found respondents reluctant to separate the personal and the professional, stating that the two were both a part of t h e i r i d e n t i t y . Those d i f f e r e n t findings about s o c i a l workers' personal and professional i d e n t i t i e s combined with a lack of s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y indicated by some present non-degreed " s o c i a l workers" at the Ministry of S o c i a l Services and 90 Housing suggests that a picture of s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y may rela t e to a combination of factors, including one's status i n the profession. That i s , B.C.A.S.W. members and those active on i t s committees by t h e i r very nature may have more of a s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y than those who choose not to j o i n the professional association. As well, students, non-degreed workers, workers employed i n an area where s o c i a l work i s not acknowledged i n job t i t l e or c l i e n t i n t e r a c t i o n , and those not employed i n s o c i a l work at present may have less of a sense of s o c i a l work id e n t i t y . There does not appear to be research a v a i l a b l e on how s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y a f f e c t s one's attitudes about involvement i n d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s , but the nature of one's s o c i a l work i d e n t i t y may l i m i t comparability between s o c i a l work studies. 6. Members of the B.C.A.S.W. do not a l l agree about the role and funciton of the association. Respondents to Desmarnis et a l (1987) and the thesis study appeared to have no problem with integration of the personal and professional, but those who were active i n nuclear disarmament d i d not necessarily see i t as an appropriate issue f o r the B.C.A.S.W., and some respondents commented that there might not be a necessity for separate i d e n t i f i e d s o c i a l work nuclear disarmament groups. Respondents had some very eloquent and polarized views about the nature and purpose of the B.C.A.S.W.: on the one hand, the B.C.A.S.W. should be an association for the purpose of advancing the professionalism of s o c i a l work and the cause of s o c i a l workers; on the other hand, the B.C.A.S.W. should work to better the s o c i a l conditions i n which a l l people l i v e . That i s , i n the l a t t e r case, s o c i a l work should consider a l l of the "adaptive transactions" between c l i e n t s and t h e i r environments (Goldstein, 1984), including the threat of nuclear war. The implications of t h i s s p l i t on p o l i c y formation and association p r i o r i t i e s forms one of the contexts within which the B.C.A.S.W. works. The respondents who were favourable toward B.C.A.S.W. a c t i v i t y seemed to f a l l into two groups: f i r s t , those who were active i n nuclear disarmament and believed that a l l s o c i a l workers, including the association as a whole, should be active, and second, those who saw the issue as important, but were inactive and wanted the B.C.A.S.W. to be involved on t h e i r behalf. I t appeared that favourable attitudes also included two other value judgements: B.C.A.S.W. should be involved i n s o c i a l issues, and nuclear disarmament i s an important s o c i a l issue. Unfavourable attitudes toward B.C.A.S.W. a c t i v i t y seemed to re l a t e to b e l i e f s that nuclear disarmament was either not a s o c i a l work issue or not a B.C.A.S.W. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . According to thesis respondents, the Association had more important s o c i a l work issues, or had too few resources to spend on nuclear disarmament. In those cases, factors influencing respondents to be active i n nuclear disarmament 92 issues might not have been relevant to a s o c i a l worker's wish that the Association not take action or to the lack of any wish to j o i n an i d e n t i f i e d s o c i a l work peace or disarmament group. Discussions i n the nuclear disarmament l i t e r a t u r e about s o c i a l work a c t i v i t y include both a micro and a macro focus. S o c i a l workers involved i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t y have come from psychotherapy, family therapy, and i n d i v i d u a l and group casework with children and youth (Gould, Eden, Green and Roberts i n Gould et a l , 1986; Demuth i n Van Ornum and Van Ornum, 1984; Thurlow, 1982; P o l l i s , 1983; S a v i l l e , 1987) . Their arguments for involvement outline both l o c a l and national arenas for action. Washington (1982), i n arguing f o r a greater s o c i a l action focus in s o c i a l work, stated that s o c i a l workers who have a broad perspective as change agents have demonstrated leadership i n community action and s o c i a l development. They have been involved i n national and int e r n a t i o n a l spheres of community development, p o l i c y development, and provision of expertise to the United Nations. S o c i a l workers are the l o g i c a l choice as leaders i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l sphere (Washington, 1982). However, ambivalence and value c o n f l i c t s are to be expected since s o c i a l work i s a value-laden profession and some of those values w i l l c o n f l i c t (Rein, 1976). Since values determine 93 professional attitude and behaviour, have d i f f e r e n t meaning i n d i f f e r e n t s i t uations, and are given d i f f e r e n t emphasis within the profession, value c o n f l i c t s and continuing value change are to be expected (Krause, 1982). Nevertheless, "the values and ethics of the profession leave no doubt as to the stand we must take on issues that threaten peace, l i f e , equality and human r i g h t s " (Hirsche, 1986; p.2). 94 REFERENCES Adult Children of Alcoholics. (1987). Pamphlet, No t i t l e . Alberta Association of Social Workers. (1986). Peace, Poverty and Hope: Special Coverage of the Conference of '86, The Advocate. 11(4), 1-12. Alcock, S. (1988). E d i t o r i a l . Social Work Perspectives. 10(3), p.2. Aldridge, R. (1983). F i r s t S t r i k e ! The Pentagon's Strategy  for Nuclear War. Boston: South End Press. Alexander, Chauncey. (1983). The Welfare State: Social Work and Human Survival. In Bread Not Bombs. Washington: National Association of S o c i a l Workers. American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual of Mental Disorders: Third E d i t i o n - Revised. Washington: American Psychiatric Association. Anderton, James P. (1986). Nuclear Freedom i n One Country. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms  Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.185-196) Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Andrews, Sunny and Kohn, Ezra. (1985). The Threat of War and the Arms Race: The Impact on Social Work Education Washington, D.C.: Annual Program meeting of the Council On Social Work Education. Arake, Takeshi. (1986). The S p i r i t of Hiroshima. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race:  Fund Human Needs (pp.227-234) Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Aronson, E l l i o t . (1984). The Social Animal. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Austin, D. (1983). The Flexner Myth and the History of Social Work. Soc i a l Serices Review, 57(3), 357-?. Austin, Michael J . (1978). Professionals and Paraprofessionals New York: Human Sciences Press. B.C.A.S.W. (1987). Membership Breakdown as of December 31.  1987. Unpublished. B.C.A.S.W. Task Force on S o c i a l Work and The Peace Movement Pamphlet, Undated. 95 Ba r t l e t t , Harriett M. (1976). Emergence of the Profession: Early Trends. In N e i l G i l b e r t and Harry Specht (Eds.), The Emergence of So c i a l Welfare and Social Work (pp.281-301). Itasca, I l l i n o i s : F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. Bastian, General G. (1986). From Mutual Assured Destruction to Star Wars: From War Prevention to War Making. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race:  Fund Human Needs (pp.57-74) Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Beardslee, W. and Mack, J . (1982). The Impact on Children and Adolescents of Nuclear Developments. In Psychosocial Aspects of Nuclear Development. Task Force  Report #20. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association. Becker, E l l e n and Green, Barbara. (1986). The Nuclear threat in the C l i n i c a l hour. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared:  The Psychological E f f e c t of The Nuclear Threat on  Children (pp.153-158) Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Bern, Daryl J . (1970). B e l i e f s . Attitudes, and Human A f f a i r s Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Bernard, V. W., Ottenberg, Perry, and Redl, F r i t z . (1977). Dehumanization: A Composite Psychological Defense i n Relation to Modern War. In Alan Monat & Richard S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and Coping: An Anthology New York: Columbia University Press. Brandt, W. (1986). World Armament and World Hunger: A C a l l  for Action. London: V i c t o r Gollancz Ltd. Bundy, M., Halperin, M., Kaufmann, W., Kennan, G., McNamara, R., O'Donnell, M., S i g a l , L., Smith, G., Ullman, R., Warnke, P. (1986). Back From the Brink. The A t l a n t i c  Monthly. 2_58(2), 35-41. Caldicott, Helen. (1982). Nuclear Madness. Toronto: Bantam Books. Caldicott, Helen. (1986). Commit Yourself to Saving the Earth. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End  the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.311-320) Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Canada Emergency Measures Organization. (1969). Eleven  Steps to Survival. Ottawa: Emergency Measures Organization. \ 96 Carothers, Andre. (1986a). In Nevada: The Hike to Stop Nuclear Testing. Greenpeace Examiner, 11(2), 22-24. Carothers, Andre. (1986b). The Saga of Windscale: P r o f i t s at Any Cost. Greenpeace Examiner. 11(2), 20-21. Carr, Ian. (1986). The C i v i l Defense of Canada Against Nuclear Attack. B r i t i s h Columbia Medical Journal. 28(9), 613-615. C a r r o l l , Rear Admiral Eugene J . , U.S.N. (Ret.). (1983). A M i l i t a r y Man Looks at the Nuclear Freeze. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.215-247). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Print e r s . C a r r o l l , Rear Admiral Eugene J . , U.S.N. (Ret.). (1986). A new Concept for Security i n the Nuclear Age. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race:  Fund Human Needs (pp.29-36) Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Chiland, Elyse (Ed.). Marshall Islands: Two Warriors Return. Greenpeace Examiner. 11(2), 25. Chivian, E., Chivian, S., L i f t o n , R.J. and Mack, J . ( ) Last Aid: The Medical Dimensions of Nuclear War. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co. Clarke, R. and Swift, R., eds. (1982). Ties That Bind: Canada and the Third World. Toronto: The Alger Press limited. Compton, B. and Galaway, B. (1979). Social Work Processes. Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press. Crane, John. (1985). Potential Contributions of Social Work  Education to Peace Studies Washington, D.C.: Annual Program meeting of the Council On Social Work Education. Dalby, Simon, Ed. (1986). On Teaching Peace. Issues i n Education and Culture,. July. Vancouver: The I n s t i t u t e for the Humanities, Simon Fraser University. Dean, A. (1987). Qualitative Research into the Attitudes of  B.C.A.S.W. Members' Attitudes Towards Nuclear  Disarmament. Unpublished research course paper. De Roo, Bishop Remi J . (1986). Our War Economy and Conversion to Peace. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.93-102). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. 97 Desmarnis, S., Ef f a , R., Gordon, A., Gould, G.,Herringer, B., LeClair, J . , Li d s t e r , W., Lindsay, T., Mavis, H., McRae, M., Terpenning, G., Whyte, C., Winkelaar, J . (1986) . P i l o t Study on S o c i a l Workers and Peace. Unpublished course papers. Desmarnis, S., Effa, R., Gordon, A., Gould, G.,Herringer, B., LeClair, J ., Li d s t e r , W., Lindsay, T., Mavis, H., McRae, M., Terpenning, G., Whyte, C , Winkelaar, J . (1987) . Urban Study on S o c i a l Workers and Nuclear  Disarmament. Unpublished course documentation. Eden, E. (1986). Advocacy With Teenagers Facing the Nuclear Threat. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological  E f f e c t of The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.135-139) Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Eden, E. and Roberts, W. (1986). A f f e c t i n g Public Policy. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological E f f e c t of  The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.169-172) Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Eisenbud, Monika, Van Hoorn, Judith, and Berger Gould, Benina. (1986). Children, Adolescents and the Threat of Nuclear War: An International Perspective. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological E f f e c t of  The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.183-218) Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Ellsberg, Daniel. (1983). Confronting the Rising Risk of World War I I I . In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The  Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.248-283). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen P r i n t e r s . Emergency Planning Canada. (1982). Annual Review Ottawa: Ministry of Supply. Emergency Planning Canada. (1984). How to Build A Basement  Fallout Shelter. Ottawa: Emergency Planning Canada. Emergency Planning Canada. (1986). Emergency So c i a l Services Manual. Ottawa: Emergency Planning Canada. Escalona, S. (1965). Children and the Threat of Nuclear War. In M. Schwebel (Ed.), Behavioral Science and  Human Survival. Palo A l t o , C a l i f . : Behavioral Science Press. Escalona, S. (1982). Growing U p With the Threat of Nuclear War: Some Indirect E f f e c t s on Personality Development. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 52(4), 600-607. 98 Falk, Richard A. (1983). The Stuggle Agaisnt the Nuclear Arms Race. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The Prevention  of Nuclear War (pp.148-158). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Printe r s . Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Row, Peterson. Frank, J . (1982) . Sanity and S u r v i v a l i n the Nuclear Age:  Psychological Aspects of War and Peace. New York: Random House. Fried, M. (1982). Endemic Stress: The Psychology of Resignation and the P o l i t i c s of Scarcity. American  Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 52., 4-19. Galbraith, Professor John Kenneth. (1986). The M i l i t a r y Power: Tension as a Servant; Arms Control as an I l l u s i o n . In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (pp. 103-110) Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. G i l b e r t , N e i l and Specht, Harry. (1976). The Incomplete Profession. In Neil G i l b e r t and Harry Specht (Eds.), The Emergence of Social Welfare and Social Work (pp.318-334). Itasca, I l l i n o i s : F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. Goldstein, E.G. (1984). Ego Psychology and Social Work  Practice. New York: The Free Press. Goresky, Dorothy. (1986a). Medicine's Greatest Challenge -The Threat of Nuclear War. The B r i t i s h Columbia Medical  Journal. 28(9), 619-620. Goresky, Dorothy. (1986b). Psychological Aspects of a Nuclear Arms Race. The B r i t i s h Columbia Medical  Journal. 28(9), 610-613. Gould, J e f f r e y . (1986). Exploring Youth's Reaction to The Threat of Nuclear War. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The  Psychological E f f e c t of The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.49-56) Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Greenwood, Ernest. (1976). A t t r i b u t e s of a Profession. In N e i l G i l b e r t and Harry Specht (Eds.), The Emergence of  Social Welfare and S o c i a l Work (pp.302-317). Itasca, I l l i n o i s : F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. G r i n n e l l , Richard M. (1981). S o c i a l Work Research and Evaluation. Itasca, I l l i n o i s : F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. 99 Halmos, Paul. (1978). The Personal and the P o l i t i c a l . Hutchinson & Co. Ltd. Halsted, Thomas A. (1983). Prospects f o r Arms Control and Disarmament. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The Prevention  of Nuclear War (pp.132-147). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Printers. Hamburger, Howard and Weinstein, Deborah. (1986). Community Mental health and The Nuclear Threat. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up  Scared: The Psychological E f f e c t of The Nuclear Threat  on Children (pp.159-168). Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Hargreaves, S.L. (1984). Psychological Impact of Nuclear  Developments on Youth: A Local Study. M.A. Thesis. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University. Hayter, Teresa. (1982). The Creation of World Poverty. London: Pluto Press Limited. Hersey, John. (1946). Hiroshima. New York: Bantam Books. Hirsche, Pat. (1986). E d i t o r i a l . Peace, Poverty and Hope: Special Coverage of the Conference of '86, The Advocate, 11(4), 2. Hoffmann, G.W. (No date). The Pentwin Album. Vancouver: Vancouver Pentwin Committee. Hollander, Edwin P. and J u l i a n , James W. (1970). Studies i n Leader Legitimacy, Influence, and Innovation. In Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n Experimental  Social Psychology (pp.120-186). New York: Academic Press. Kahane, A., Kay, R., Sobrino, L. (1983). The Cruise mis s i l e : A Canadian Perspective. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.175-193). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Print e r s . Katz, A. (1981). L i f e A f t e r Nuclear War: The Economic and  Social Impacts of Nuclear Attacks on the U.S. Cambridge: B a l l i n g e r . Kelly, Petra K. (1986) . New Forms of Power: the Green Feminist View. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.207-226). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. 100 K i l l i l e a , M. (1982). Interaction of C r i s i s Theory, Coping Strategies, and Social Support Systems. In Herbert C. Schulberg and Marie K i l l i l e a , Eds., The Modem Practice  of Community Mental Health (pp. 163-214). San Francisco: jossey-Bass publishers. Kirwin, B i l l . (1986). My Hero: Jane Addams. The Advocate. 11(3), 1. Krause, Kenneth. (1982). S o c i a l Work Values: Sextant for the Future. In Robert 0. Washington and Beverly G. Toomey (Eds.), Social Work i n the 1980's: Changes.  C r i s i s . Challenges (pp.30-40). C a l i f o r n i a : International Dialogue Press. L a l l y , Ron. (1986). Providing a Context for Peace Education. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological Ef f e c t of  The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.13-24). Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Lamontagne, H. (1983). Study on the Psychological E f f e c t s of Disasters on Operational Personnel. Ottawa: Emergency Planning Canada. Lashof, Joyce. (1986). Public Health and The Nuclear Threat. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological  E f f e c t of The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.7-12). Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. L e f f e r t s , Robert. (1982). Future Issues i n Social Work Education. In Robert Washington and Beverly Toomey (Eds.), Social Work i n the 1980's (pp.153-163) . Davis, C a l i f o r n i a : International Dialogue Press. Leventhal, Howard. (1970). Findings and Theory in The Study of Fear Communications. In Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology (pp.120-186). New York: Academic Press. Lewis, S. (1986). Reconciling the Discrepancies. The  Advocate. 11(3), 4-5. L i f t o n , R.J. (1967). Death i n L i f e : Survivors of Hiroshima. New York: Simon and Shuster. L i f t o n , R.J. (1982). Beyond Psychic Numbing: A C a l l to Awareness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 619-629. L i f t o n , R.J. and Falk, R. (1982). Indefensible Weapons: The  P o l i t i c a l and Psychological Case Against Nuclearism. New York: Basic Books. 101 Lipton, J.E. (1983). Stopping the Unthinkable: The Physician's Role i n Preventing Nuclear War. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.33-46). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Printers. Lundy, Colleen. (1987). The Role of Social Work in the Peace Movement. The Social Worker. __(2), 61-65. Mack, John E. (1982). The Perception of U.S.-Soviet Intentions and Other Psychological Dimensions of the Nuclear Arms Race. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 52(4), 590-599. Mack, John E. (1983). What Russian Children are Thinking  About Nuke Weapons. A r t i c l e reprinted by New Haven, CT.: The Advocate Press. Mack, John E. (1986). Approaching The Nuclear Threat i n C l i n i c a l Work with Children and Their Families. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological E f f e c t of  The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.25-38) Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Macy, Joanna. (1979). How to Deal With Despair. In New  Age. (Photocopy, no volume number), (pp.40-45). Macy, Joanna. (1983). Despair and Personal Power i n The  Nuclear Age. Philadelphia: New Society. Maluccio, Anthony N. (1979). Action as a Tool i n Casework Practice. In B.E. Compton and B. Galaway, Social Work  Processes (pp. 386-391). Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press. Mather, L. (1986). S o c i a l Workers and Disarmament: A  Question of Involvement. Unpublished major paper. U.B.C. School of Social Work. Mclntyre, Michael. (1987). Social Work Practitioners i n Search of Significance. The Advocate,. 12(2), 1-5. Menninger, Roy W. (1983) . Living With the Unthinkable: Psychological Aspects of the Nuclear Arms Race. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.20-32). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Printers. Meyer, Henry J . (1961). Professionalization and Social Work. In A l f r e d J . Kahn (Ed.), Issues i n American  s o c i a l Work. New York: Columbia University Press. (319-340) . 102 Milgram, S. (1975). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper and Row. M i l l e r , Joanna. (1986). The Arms Race and Suffering i n the Third World: One Problem. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.125-128). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Minahan, Anne. (1982). Social Work Practice: Now and i n the Future. In Robert Washington and Beverly Toomey (Eds.), Social Work in the 1980's (pp.49-53). Davis, C a l i f o r n i a : International Dialogue Press. Monette, D. R., Sull i v a n , T.J., Dejong, C.R. (1986). Applied Social Reserarch: Tools for the Human Services. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Myers, Janet Turpin. (1987). Peace Essay Contest -Peacemonger. The Social Worker. 55(2), 75-77. N.A.S.W. (No date). Handout. Massachusetts Chapter. O'Connor, Ian, Dalgleish, Len, Khan, Janet. (1984). A Reflection of The Rising Spectre of Conservatism: Motivational Accounts of S o c i a l Work Students. B r i t i s h  Journal of Social Work,. 14, 227-240. Olsen, Laurie. (1986). Youth Activism and Empowerment. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological Effect of  The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.119-134). Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Parkes, CM. (1982) . Role of Support Systems i n Loss and Psychosocial Transitions. In Herbert C. Schulberg and Marie K i l l i l e a , Eds., The Modern Practice of Community  Mental Health (pp. 215-229). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pauling, Linus. (1983) . The Path to World Peace. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.). The Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.199-214). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Printers. Peavey, Frances and Varon, Charles. (1982). How to Talk With Your Children About Nuclear War. Northampton, MA: Interhelp. Pentz, Michael. (1983). A European Scientist Looks at Nuclear Weapons. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The  Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.47-111). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen P r i n t e r s . 103 Pentz, Professor Michael. (1986). To Prevent Nuclear War and Promote Nuclear Disarmament: I t ' s Time for a New Look. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End  the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.271-298). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Perry, T. L. (1983). Effects of a Nuclear Attack on Vancouver and Calgary. In The Prevention of Nuclear  War (pp.1-19). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Printers. Perry, T.L. (1986a). Nuclear Winter: Latest Threat to Human Survival. The B r i t i s h Columbia Medical Journal, 28(9), 621-624. Perry, T.L. (1986b). What the Arms Race i s Doing to People i n the Third World. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.167-178). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. P h i l l i p s , C. and Ross, I. (1984). The Nuclear Casebook: An  I l l u s t r a t e d Guide. Canada: Quadrant Editions. Physicians for S o c i a l Responsibility. (Undated). Handout. Polansky, Norman A. (1961). The Professional Identity In Social Work. In Al f r e d J . Kahn (Ed.), Issues i n  American s o c i a l Work. New York: Columbia University Press. (293-318) P o l l i s , Marcia F. (1983). Perspectives of a C l i n i c a l P ractitioner: The Indirect and Direct Consequences of the Nuclear Arms Race. In Bread Not Bombs: Proceedings  of N.A.S.W. Conference. Regehr, Ernie. (1983. Economic Implications f o r Canada of the Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.121-131). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen Printers. Rein, Martin. (1976). Social Work i n Search of a Radical Profession. In N e i l G i l b e r t and Harry Specht (Eds.), The Emergence of Social Welfare and Social Work (pp.459-483). Itasca, I l l i n o i s : F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. Reisch, Michael, Wenocur, Stanley, & Sherman, Wendy. (1981). Empowerment, Conscientization and Animation as Core Social Work S k i l l s . In Armand Lauffer & Edward Newman (Eds.), Community Organization for the 1980's. Social  Development Issues, 5(2-3), pp.108-119. 104 Roche, Ambassador Douglas. (1986). Canada and the International Year of Peace. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race; Fund Human Needs (pp.147-158). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. (1982). Nuclear War: The Aftermath. Ambio. A Journal of the Human Environment. 11(2-3). Santa Barbara, J . (1986). Psychological Effects On Children and Adolescents of the Threat of Nuclear War: A Review. B r i t i s h Columbia Medical Journal, 28(9), 616-618. S a v i l l e , John. (1987). Social Work and Peace. Workshop, U.B.C. School of Social Work. Scheer. R. (1982). With Enough Shovels: Reagan. Bush and  Nuclear War. New York: Random House. Schell, Jonathan. (1982). The Fate of the Earth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc. Schwebel, M. (1965). Student Opinion and Professional Responsibility. In M. Schwebel (Ed.), Behavioral  Science and Human Survival. Palo Alto, C a l i f . : Behavioral Science Press. Schwebel, M. (1982). E f f e c t s of the Nuclear War Threat on Children and Teenagers: Implications For Professionals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 52(4), 608-618. S e l l t i z , C. (1976). Research Methods i n Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sexual Abuse Survivors Anonymous. (1986). Pamphlet. No publisher. Shaffer, E. (1986). Global Poverty: Fallout from Economic Warfare. The Advocate f 11(3), 9. Sivard, R.L. (1982). World M i l i t a r y and Social Expenditures  1982. Leesburg, V i r g i n i a : World P r i o r i t i e s . Smoke, Richard. (1986). The P o l i t i c a l Psychology of Deterrence. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological  Eff e c t of The Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.39-48). Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Social Work Perspectives. (1986). 8(6), 4. Social Work Perspectives. (1987) ._9_(5), 11. 105 Solantaus, Dr. T y t t i , (1986). Adolescence and The Nuclear Threat i n Finland: Anxiety and Optimism. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological E f f e c t of The  Nuclear Threat on Children (pp77-92). Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. Specht, Harry. (1976). The Deprofessionalization of Social Work. In Neil G i l b e r t and Harry Specht (Eds.), The  Emergence of Social Welfare and So c i a l Work (pp.484-503). Itasca, I l l i n o i s : F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc. Stamm, Isabel. (1961). Ego Psychology i n the Emerging Theoretical Base of Casework. In A l f r e d J . Kahn (Ed.), Issues i n American Social Work (80-109). New York: Columbia University Press. Steiner, Ivan D. (1970). Perceived Freedom. In Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n Experimental Social  Psychology (pp.187-249). New York: Academic Press. Sudman, S. (1985). Mail Surveys of Reluctant Professionals. Evaluation Review, 09(3), 349-360. Suzuki, Professor David. (1986). Technology, Science and Preparations for War. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.321-332). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. The Ploughshares Monitor. (1985a). Star Wars and Canadian Jobs, 06.(2) , 4-6. The Ploughshares Monitor. (1985b). Canadian Defence Spending, 06(2), 6-8. The Ploughshares Monitor. (1986). Situation i n Kwajalein, 07(4), 6. The Social Worker. (1986). So c i a l Workers Active For Peace, 54(4), 184. Thurlow, Setsuko. (1982). Nuclear War i n Human perspective: A Survivor's Report. In American Journal of  Orthopsychiatry, 52(4) 638-645. Van Hoorn, Judith. (1986). Facing The Nuclear Threat: Comparisons of Adolescents and Adults. In Benina Berger Gould, Susan Moon, Judith Van Hoorn (Eds.), Growing Up Scared: The Psychological E f f e c t of The  Nuclear Threat on Children (pp.57-76). Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Open Books. 106 Van Ornum, William and Van Ornum, Mary Wicker. (1984). Talking to Children About Nuclear War. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. Verdon-Roe, Vivienne. (1963). Nuclear Threat: Our Children Are A f r a i d . In Presbyterian Survey. (Reprinted, no volume number), 10-13. Walker, R.B.J. (1986). Culture and Insecurity. In Simon Dalby (Ed.), Issues In Education and Culture: On  Teaching Peace (pp.63-69). Vancouver: Simon Fraser University. Walster, E., Aronson, E., Abrahams, D. (1966). On Increasing the Persuasiveness of a Low Prestige Communicator. Journal of Experimental S o c i a l  Psychology. 02, 325-342. Wallace, Michael D. (1983). Canada's Role i n the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament. In T. L. Perry, J r . (Ed.), The Prevention of Nuclear War (pp.12-120). Altona, Manitoba: Friesen P r i n t e r s . Wallace-Deering, K. (1986). The Economics of War and Peace. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms  Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.81-92). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Warnke, Paul. (1986). What Governments Can Do to Prevent Nuclear War and Promote M u l t i l a t e r a l Disarmament. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms  Race: Fund Human Needs (pp.255-260). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Washington, Robert 0. (1982). The Future of S o c i a l Work: Implications for S o c i a l Work Education. In Robert O. Washington and Beverly G. Toomey (Eds.), Social Work i n  the 1980's: Changes. C r i s i s . Challenges (pp.164-171). C a l i f o r n i a : International Dialogue Press. Wasserman, H., Solomon, N. (1983). K i l l i n g Our Own: The  Disaster of America's Experiments With Atomic  Radiation. New York: D e l l . Weinbach, Robert. (1982). The Issue of P r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n . In Robert O. Washington and Beverly G. Toomey (Eds.), Social Work i n the 1980's: Changes. C r i s i s , Challenges (pp.41-44). C a l i f o r n i a : International Dialogue Press. Wien, Barbara (Ed.). (1984). Peace and World Order Studies:  A Curriculum Guide. New York: World Policy I n s t i t u t e . 107 Wilson, Lois. (1986). Blessed Are the Peacemakers. In T. L. Perry and James G. Foulks (Eds.), End the Arms Race:  Fund Human Needs (pp.137-146). Vancouver: Gordon Soules Book Publishers Ltd. Witheford, N. (1986). Doom Discourse. In P h i l i p Hanson (Ed.), Issues In Education and Culture: On Teaching  Peace (pp.24-26). Vancouver: Simon Fraser University. Woodworth, Elizabeth. (1987). What Can I Do? Citizen Strategies for Nuclear Disarmament. V i c t o r i a : Cream Books. Yudkin, Marcia. (1984). When Kids Think The Unthinkable. In Psychology Today. April(photocopy, no v o l . no.), 18-25. Zimbardo, P h i l i p , Ebbesen, Ebbe, and Maslach, Christina. (1977). Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior:  An Introduction to Method. Theory, and Applications of  Social Control and Personal Power. New York: Random House. SECONDARY REFERENCES Cross, Darryl G., Khan, Janet A. (1983). The Values of Three Pr a c t i t i o n e r Groups: Religious and Moral Aspects. Counseling and Values f 28(1), 13-19. Hegan, Mary. (1987). Evolving National Social Work P r o f i l e . The Social Worker, 55(4), 182. Howard, Tina. (1985). Moral Reasoning and Professional Value Commitments: A Study of S o c i a l Work Students' Ideology. The Journal of Applied S o c i a l Sciences, 9(2), 203-221. Kadushin, A l f r e d . (1958). Determinants of Career Choice and Their Implications for Social Work. Social Work  Education. 6(2), 17-27. Kohs, S.C. (1966). The Roots of S o c i a l Work. New York: Association Press. Lodge, Richard. (1982). Combatting A l i e n a t i o n : The Social Worker as Humanizing Agent. In Robert 0. Washington and Beverly G. Toomey (Eds.), S o c i a l Work i n the  1980's: Changes. C r i s i s , Challenges (pp.27-30). C a l i f o r n i a : International Dialogue Press. 108 APPENDIX At STATEMENTS BY SOCIAL WORK GR0UP8 109 STATEMENTS BY SOCIAL WORK GROUPS I n t e r n a t i o n a l F e d e r a t i o n o f S o c i a l Workers R e s o l u t i o n on N u c l e a r Disarmament/ 1984. "WHEREAS Social Workers are committed to the fundamental value of human l i f e and to the worth, dignity and creative i n d i v i d u a l i t y of every human being; and "WHEREAS Social Workers acknowledge the problem-solving capacities of people to e f f e c t change i n society toward s o c i a l j u s t i c e for a l l ; and "WHEREAS Social Work knowledge attests to the harmful effects of anxiety and fear on the p s y s i c a l well-being and mental health of a l l persons, and i n p a r t i c u l a r recognizes that children and youth are most vulnerable to these destructive e f f e c t s ; and "WHEREAS the International Federation of Social Workers declares i t s e l f to be committed to e f f e c t i n g s o c i a l change fostering human well-being; therefore: "BE IT RESOLVED that the International Federation of S o c i a l Workers support worldwide nuclear disarmament and commitment to peace and c a l l s for immediate cessation of the production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons wherever they exist ; and further, "BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the International Federation of Social Workers investigate and inform themselves and others how much money now budgeted f o r nuclera weapons could be diverted to increase a l l o c a t i o n s toward s o c i a l development and s o c i a l services and toward the creation of employment opportunities for youth; "BE IT RESOLVED that members of the International Federation of Social Workers promtoe, i n t h e i r d a i l y practice, the development of methods of non-violent c o n f l i c t r e s olution i n th e i r work with individuals, groups, and communities; "BE IT RESOLVED tthat the International Federation of S o c i a l Workers seek ways to work i n cooperation with other professional groups committed to nucleradisarmament and peace." (From the International Conference of Social Workers, August 10, 1984). 110 B.C. A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l Workers, 1983, R e s o l u t i o n on N u c l e a r Disarmament. B E IT R E S O L V E D t h a t B . C . A . S . W . u r g e a l l p e o p l e a n d n a t i o n s t o w o r k t o w a r d g l o b a l n u c l e a r d i s a r m a m e n t a n d g l o b a l p e a c e ; A N D B . C . A . S . W . a d o p t t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t B . C . a n d C a n a d a m u s t b e c o m e z o n e s f r e e o f n u c l e a r w e a p o n s a n d a n y i n d u s t r i a l o r m i l i t a r y a c t i v i t y w h i c h c o n t r i b u r e s t o t h e i r c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e ; A N D B . C . A . S . W . c o m m u n i c a t e i t s p o s i t i o n t o t h e g o v e r n m e n t s o f B . C . a n d C a n a d a , t h e C . A . S . W . a n d t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . B.C. A s s o c i a t i o n o f S o c i a l Workers, 1983, R e s o l u t i o n . W H E R E A S i n v i e w o f t h e a c t i v e i n t e r e s t B . C . A . S . W . h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d i n p e a c e i s s u e s t h r o u g h i t s m e m b e r s h i p i n E n d T h e A r m s R a c e a n d r e c e n t s u p p o r t o f t h e V a n c o u v e r C i t y C o u n c i l ' s r e s o l u t i o n s o n n u c l e a r f r e e z o n e s , B E IT R E S O L V E D t h a t t h e b o a r d e s t a b l i s h a t a s k f o r c e f o r p e a c e . I t s f u n c t i o n s w o u l d i n c l u d e p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n o n s o c i a l w e l f a r e a s p e c t s o f t h e a r m s r a c e , e d u c a t i o n o f o u r o w n m e m b e r s o n p e a c e i s s u e s , a n d e s t a b l i s h i n g w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h o t h e r p e a c e g r o u p s . I l l APPENDIX B : DEFINITIONS 112 DEFINITIONS S t a b l e m utual d e t e r r e n c e means t h a t r e g a r d l e s s o f w h i c h s i d e f i r s t u ses n u c l e a r weapons a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r , b o t h c o u n t r i e s w i l l s u f f e r u n a c c e p t a b l e l o s s e s r e n d e r i n g n u c l e a r war u n t h i n k a b l e . F l e x i b l e r e s p o n s e i s a s t r a t e g y a l l o w i n g f o r commitment o f a l i m i t e d number o f n u c l e a r weapons i n a b a t t l e f i e l d s c e n a r i o o f c o n t r o l l e d e s c a l a t i o n d u r i n g a l i m i t e d n u c l e a r war. L i m i t e d n u c l e a r war assumes c o n t r o l l e d and plann e d commitment o f enough n u c l e a r weapons t o f i g h t and w i n a war o v e r a p e r i o d o f days o r weeks. F i r s t - s t r i k e n u c l e a r weapons a r e t h o s e weapons f o r w h i c h t h e r e i s no o t h e r use t h a n a p r e - e m p t i v e a t t a c k on an enemy r a t h e r t h a n a r e t a l i a t o r y s t r i k e i n response t o a t t a c k . These n u c l e a r weapons a r e a c c u r a t e enough t o p i n p o i n t and d e s t r o y a p r o t e c t e d m i s s i l e , and r e l a t i v e l y d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e c t i n t i m e t o l a u n c h a r e t a l i a t o r y a t t a c k b e f o r e one's m i s s i l e s have been d e s t r o y e d . These weapons r e l y on e i t h e r speed o v e r a s h o r t d i s t a n c e ( i . e . P e r s h i n g I I ) o r a b i l i t y t o evade r a d a r ( i . e . C r u i s e m i s s i l e ) . H o r i z o n t a l p r o l i f e r a t i o n means an i n c r e a s i n g number o f c o u n t r i e s g a i n i n g t h e a b i l i t y t o produce t h e i r own n u c l e a r arms and u s i n g t h a t a b i l i t y t o manufacture n u c l e a r weapons. Launch-on-warning means computer c o n t r o l o f deployment o f n u c l e a r m i s s i l e s because o f human i n a b i l i t y t o respond b e f o r e t h e i n c o m i n g f i r s t - s t r i k e enemy m i s s i l e s d e s t r o y one's m i s s i l e s on t h e ground. 113 APPENDIX Ct TABLES 114 TABLE l a RE8P0N8E8 BY BRANCH % O F % O F N U M B E R O F B R A N C H M E M B E R S * R E S P O N D E N T S R E S P O N D E N T S G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r 59 39 12 S o u t h V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d 16 19 6 N o r t h V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d 5 6 2 N o r t h e r n 3.5 3 1 N o r t h w e s t 2 3 1 O k a n a g a n 4 0 0 F r a s e r V a l l e y 4 6 2 K a m i o o p s 1 0 0 K o o t e n a y 2 6 2 N o n - B r a n c h c a t e g o r y 3.5 3 1 * % o f B . C . A . S . W . m e m b e r s h i p a s o f D e c e m b e r , 1987 115 TABLE 2a Section I: Question 1 CONSCIOUSNESS OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ISSUES SCALE - 1 (very l i t t l e ) ; 2 (a l i t t l e ) ; 3 (somewhat); 4 (a l o t ) ; 5 (a great deal); 0 (N/A-not applicable). VARIABLE MEAN S. D. MIN MAX # 1. Concern abt. N. attack on Canada 3. 393 1. 166 1 5 28 2. Adverse e f f e c t on c l i e n t s 1. 875 1. 361 0 5 31 3. Adverse ef f e c t on family 2. 103 1. 448 0 5 31 4. Adverse effect on s e l f 2. 133 1. 273 0 5 31 5. World leaders can be influenced 3. 484 1. 363 1 5 31 6. Soc.Wrkers are q u a l i f i e d to speak 3. 355 1. 279 1 5 31 7. Survival means stopping nuclear arms race 4. 065 1. 063 1 5 31 8. Community disaster plan showed practice issues 3. 600 1. 673 0 5 31 9. Global s o c i a l issues as important as l o c a l ones 4. 000 1. 145 1 5 30 10 . Money spent arms race 4. 226 • 956 1 5 31 takes away from soc.pgms 116 T A B L E 2 b C O R R E L A T I O N OF RESPONDENT'8 A C T U A L N U C L E A R DI8ARMANENT A C T I V I T I E S TO C O N S C I O U S N E S S OF N U C L E A R DI8ARMANENT I S S U E S VARIABLE Pearson's R 1. Concern a b t . N. a t t a c k on Canada .10766 2. A d v e r s e e f f e c t on c l i e n t s .37403 3. A d v e r s e e f f e c t on f a m i l y .39559 4. A d v e r s e e f f e c t on s e l f .44401 5. World l e a d e r s c a n be i n f l u e n c e d .43506 6. Soc.Wrkers a r e q u a l i f i e d t o speak .54164 7. S u r v i v a l means s t o p p i n g n u c l e a r arms r a c e .20342 8. Comm. d i s a s t e r p l a n showed p r a c t i c e i s s u e s .49099 9. G l o b a l s o c i a l i s s u e s as imp. as l o c a l ones .41237 10. $ s p e n t arms r a c e t a k e s away from soc.pgms .39912 117 TABLE 3a NUCLEAR PI8ARMAMENT ACTIVITY Section I: Question 5 Percent of Respondents STUDY STUDY STUDY STUDY ACTIVITY #1 #2 #3 #4 Peace Walks 69 75 52 32 Fund Raising Walks n/a n/a 4 3 Family Discussion n/a 25 52 65 Colleague Discuss 69 25 52 55 Wkshps & Seminars 71 25 12 17 Group Membership 31 13 20 10 Button/Sticker n/a 21 28 13 Peace Symposium n/a n/a 8 0 Letter Writing 38 17 16 19 View Films 90 4 32 42 C i v i l Disobedience 0 n/a 0 0 STUDY #1: Mather (1986) STUDY #2: Desmarnis et a l (1986) p i l o t study STUDY #3: Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study STUDY #4: Dean (1987) thesis study 118 TABLE 4a DRAWBACKS TO B.C.A.S.W. ACTIVITY Section I: Question 6 Respondents Study #3 Study #4 DRAWBACKS N % N Not SW Issue 1 4 4 13 Pursue More Press Issues 7 28 16 52 Negative Pub l i c i t y 3 12 4 13 Too P o l i t i c a l 1 4 4 13 Nothing Unique to Offer 5 20 5 16 Lack $ Resources 9 36 16 52 Has More Press Issues 4 16 16 52 No Imped intents 7 28 8 26 STUDY #3: Desmarnis et a l (1987) urban study STUDY #4: Dean (1987) thesis study TABLE 4b CORRELATION OF RESPONDENT'8 ACTUAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT  ACTIVITY TO POTENTIAL DRAWBACK8 TO B.C.A.8.W. NUCLEAR DISARMANENT ACTIVITY» DRAWBACKS Pearson's R Not SW Issue -.22211 Pursue More Press Issues -.50075 Negative Pub l i c i t y -.08014 Too P o l i t i c a l -.15113 Nothing Unique to Offer -.26923 Lack $ Resources -.31028 Has More Press Issues -.54837 No Impediments .63855 119 TABLE 5a IMPEDIMENTS TO INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY S e c t i o n I : Q u e s t i o n 7 Respondents Study #3 Study #4 IMPEDIMENTS N % N Too Overwhelming 4 16 7 23 U n i m p o r t a n t I'm Too Busy 2 8 6 19 9 36 8 26 Don't Know Way 6 24 7 23 H o p e l e s s Cause Don't Know Enough 1 4 2 6 3 12 2 6 Not I n t e r e s t e d i n ND 0 0 2 6 Too R a d i c a l 0 0 0 0 STUDY #3: Desmarnis e t a l (1987) urban s t u d y STUDY #4: Dean (1987) t h e s i s s t u d y TABLE 5b CORRELATION OF RESPONDENT'S ACTUAL NUCLEAR DISARMANENT  ACTION TO POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS TO INDIVIDUAL NUCLEAR  DISARMANENT ACTIVITY. IMPEDIMENTS Pearson's R Too Overwhelming U n i m p o r t a n t I'm Too Busy Don't Know Way Ho p e l e s s Cause Don't Know Enough Not I n t e r e s t e d i n ND Too R a d i c a l -.01285 -.225258 .20349 .15789 -.00625 -.19997 -.19997 n/a 1 2 0 APPENDIX D : QUESTIONNAIRE RAW DATA 121 SECTION I. NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT. 1. N U C L E A R D ISARMAMENT I S A N I S S U E T H A T MAY R A I S E S T R O N G E M O T I O N S . P L E A S E C O N S I D E R T H E F O L L O W I N G S T A T E M E N T S A N D C I R C L E T H E NUMBER WHICH COMES T H E C L O S E S T TO YOUR V I E W . U S E T H E R A T I N G S C A L E : 1 - V E R Y L I T T L E ; 2 - A L I T T L E ; 3 -SOMEWHAT; 4 - A L O T ; 5 - A G R E A T D E A L ; N / A - NOT A P P L Y . A ) I H A V E B E E N C O N C E R N E D A B O U T T H E JW _ E F F E C T S ON CANADA O F A N U C L E A R A T T A C K 1 — 2 — 4 - - 5 - - N / A M=» 3.H -A "h I I <e> (D — B) I H A V E S E E N A D V E R S E P S Y C H O L O G I C A L E F F E C T S A T T R I B U T A B L E TO L I V I N G UNDER THE N U C L E A R T H R E A T ON MY C L I E N T S /D" "^—3— 4 —5—N/A ON MY F A M I L Y 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — N / A r\ =» X \ i f 3 6 9. 3 A _ ON M Y S E L F 1—(5}-3 — 4 — 5 — N / A f-\-=:-^ , \ C) I B E L I E V E WORLD L E A D E R S C A N B E ^ I N F L U E N C E D TO A G R E E TO D I S A R M A M E N T 1 — 2 — ( f } - 4 — 5 — N / A ^ , 3 . 5 * D) I C O N S I D E R THAT S O C I A L WORKERS A R E Q U A L I F I E D TO S P E A K ABOUT T H E E F F E C T S O F T H E ARMS R A C E ON HUMAN 3. "I I 4- H -B E I N G S A N D T H E I R E N V I R O N M E N T 1—2— (5)-4—5 - -N/A M 3. 4^  !l t M ^ ' THE WORLD I S D E P E N D E D T ON S T O P P I N G J f 1—2—3—(49-5 - -N /A f{ E) I B E L I E V E THAT T H E S U R V I V A L O F S T I i THE N U C L E A R ARMS R A C E 1—2—3—(4^-5~ / A f{ _» 4., \ F) WHEN I WAS C O N T A C T E D TO B E A P A R T I 2* 4" H l"3 — OF MY C O M M U N I T Y ' S D I S A S T E R P L A N , I R E A L I Z E D T H E MANY S O C I A L WORK P R A C T I C E I S S U E S I N C O P I N G W I T H T H E R E S U L T S _ OF A N U C L E A R WAR 1—2—2-{T}-5—N/A M .= 3i t> G) I C O N S I D E R T H A T THE S O C I A L I S S U E S F A C I N G T H E WORLD A S A WHOLE A R E A S I M P O R T A N T TO S O C I A L WORK A S T H E S O C I A L I S S U E S F A C I N G AN I N D I V I D U A L OR COMMUNITY 1—2—3 1 © • r 1 a at. ^ - 5 — N / A i P r = . ^ o . g. -1 fc, I H — H) I BELIEVE THAT MONEY SPENT ON THE ' ARMS RACE TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM SOCIAL Jf — PROGRAMS 1—2—3-+<R-5—N/A »~\ " 4> *• » 122 2. PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AND PLACE A CHECK MARK BESIDE THE RESPONSE WHICH BEST OUTLINES YOUR VIEWS. , / _/ THE B.C.A.S.W. SHOULD: Number j Io I 3 % n o t b e i n v o l v e d i n n u c l e a r disarmament a c t i v i t i e s a t a l l ; j ^ l\2°la c r e a t e a committee f o r t h o s e who a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s 1 S S U 6 r ~] 33 7__ make i t o n l y a m i n o r p a r t o f t h e B.C.A.S.W.'s s o c i a l a dvocacy program; n 3 < * % make i t a ma j o r p a r t o f B.C.A.S.W. 's s o c i a l advocacy 1 program; ^ [p'la. o t h e r , s p e c i f y . 3(p (seve.Y-tx\ cU_c_ke.d ^ o r _ -rnam o^e") 3. IN THE PAST, SOME ASSOCIATION MEMBERS HAVE INDICATED AN INTEREST IN FURTHER EDUCATION ON THE SUBJECT OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE TASK FORCE TO KNOW WHICH KIND OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM WOULD BE MOST APPEALING TO B.C.A.S.W. MEMBERS. (PLEASE CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY): 4- l 3 7 o _ none; - j _!_>__ workshops; \r\ ~h"d3s. s e l f - e d u c a t i o n a l p a c k a g e s o f d i s c u s s i o n m a t e r i a l s f o r ' D s m a l l g r o u p s ; II /_ v i d e o s made a v a i l a b l e t o g r o u p s ; ^ «k _T8__ m a i l o u t s from t h e B.C.A.S.W. o f f i c e o f f a c t s h e e t s on peace i s s u e s , a c t i v i t i e s , o r dev e l o p m e n t s ; k n o w l e d g e a b l e s p e a k e r s a v a i l a b l e t o come t o o u r b r a n c h ; . —• o t h e r , p l e a s e d e s c r i b e — '_ o t h e r , p l e a s e d e s c r i b e 123 4. I F 0 MEANS "NO IMPORTANCE" AND 10 MEANS "VERY IMPORTANT" AND YOU MAY USE ANY NUMBER IN BETWEEN 0 - 10, PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIES FOR USE BY THE B.C.A.S.W. TASK FORCE ON SOCIAL WORK AND THE PEACE MOVEMENT. THE B.C.A.S.W. SHOULD: t r a i n B.C.A.S.W. members i n c l i n i c a l s k i l l s t o work w i t h f a m i l i e s who a r e t r o u b l e d by t h i s i s s u e ; Uf.j 3 s u p p o r t members o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n who d e c i d e t o p l a c e a p o r t i o n o f t h e i r income t a x w h i c h goes t o m i l i t a r y i d e f e n s e i n a s p e c i a l "PEACE TAX" f u n d ; (p.~7 m a i n t a i n t n e c u r r e n t B.C.A.S.W. Task F o r c e on S o c i a l Work and t h e Peace Movement; 3 s u p p o r t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n e f f o r t s t o b l o c k U.S. w a r s h i p s from e n t e r i n g Vancouver h a r b o u r ; (p.H' I have t h e p r e s i d e n t and/or e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r make p u b l i c s t a t e m e n t s o f s u p p o r t f o r n u c l e a r disarmament; i \ t [fi S__ d e v e l o p e d u c a t i o n a l programs f o r t h e p u b l i c about n u c l e a r disarmament; 2 U ^ c___ g i v e f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o n u c l e a r disarmament Q c o a l i t i o n g r o u p s ; ~| i O " l o b b y p o l i t i c i a n s t o s u p p o r t p o l i c i e s t o slow o r s c a l e ~ down t h e n c u l e a r arms r a c e ; 0»H" I s u p p o r t peace w a l k s f o r n u c l e a r disarmament; l_ • Ic $ s u p p o r t a B.C.A.S.W. banner i n t h e an n u a l WALK FOR PEACE; g-, 3 _* r e s e a r c h n u c l e a r disarmament i s s u e s as t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f s o c i a l work; <T."J d e v e l o p an e d u c a t i o n a l program f o r members about t h i s i s s u e ; *f.3 ___ r e q u e s t B.C. s c h o o l s o f s o c i a l work add n u c l e a r d i s a r m a -ment t o t h e s c h o o l c u r r i c u l u m ; ^."7 2 l o b b y p o l i t i c i a n s on n u c l e a r disarmament i s s u e s : -7 _7_7- j o i n w i t h o t h e r n u c l e a r disarmament g r o u p s ; , [-j 7_-_-connect w i t h s o c i a l work a s s o c i a t i o n s i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s ; • 5 , J f i n a n c i a l l y s u p p o r t p o l i t i c a l c a n d i d a t e s who e n d o r s e n u c l e a r disarmament; 14, _> H* encourage s o c i a l w o r k e r s t o d i s c u s s n u c l e a r disarmament i n t h e i r w o r k p l a c e s ; 3' fc> 3 encourage s o c i a l w o r k e r s t o q u e s t i o n t h e i r c l i e n t s a bout p o s s i b l e f e a r s and a n x i e t i e s c o n c e r n i n g n u c l e a r disarmament and t h e t h r e a t o f n u c l e a r war; o t h e r , p l e a s e s p e c i f y rvjofe' 0L\\ C0-Vec^or{<_,s Y - _ ^ < ^ _ C \ \o<_-W>eeir\ O cx>^ <_ \ O 124 5. WOULD YOU PLEASE NOTE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ISSUES OR ACTIVITIES, IF ANY, BY CHECKING OFF ANY ACTIVITY YOU HAVE ENGAGED IN OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS. MumWir / 7o. jo l ^ o l % peace walks; I "his. fund-raising walks for peace, e.g. MOVE-A-THON; Q . O iaSft family discussions about nuclear disarmament; 1^ SSJi discussions with colleagues about nuclear disarmament; (s i^Tk workshops or seminars on nuclear disarmament; 3 lOJk membership in a disarmament group or coalition; tf purchase of a disarmament button or bumper sticker; —Us. attendance at Vancouver Peace Symposium - April, 1986; (p ( 1 J letter writing regarding nuclear disarmament; 1 3 '+SI-& viewing of films about nuclear disarmament; 3?i participation in act(s) of c i v i l disobedience to protest nuclear arms; "3^  (o 2t other, please specify ; f l?>% n o nuclear disarmament activities. 6. THERE MAY BE DRAWBACKS TO PARTICIPATION IN ANY SOCIAL ADVOCACY PROGRAM. IN YOUR JUDGEMENT, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING COULD IMPEDE INVOLVEMENT BY THE B.C.A.S.W. IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITIES? PLEASE CHECK ANY OF THE FOLLOWING . THAT EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS: I l [Q\ To nuclear disarmament i s not a social work issue; I < fc^e ^• C' A* S* W- should pursue more pressing social work '^ c. problems; 13-^? nuclear disarmament activities would cause negative 0. publicity for the social work profession; Lj- 13-1? nuclear disarmament i s too p o l i t i c a l an issue for the c f social work profession; \ \p Js t n e social work profession has nothing unique to offer . existing nuclear disarmament groups; \\p <P /*> the B.C.A.S.W. lacks financial resources to be involved 0. in nuclear disarmament; \ [p S9> /» the B.C.A.S.W. has more pressing issues; ^ ^ Q other, please describe . % 3L(c2#there are no impediments to activity in this area. 125 7. SOME OF THE FOLLOWING ARE REASONS WHY INDIVIDUALS MAY FIND INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITIES DIFFICULT. PLEASE CHECK ANY STATEMENTS WHICH DESCRIBE YOUR / PRESENT SITUATION. \iUITA\Q(--X~/ ^P-f, this issue i s too overwhelming to think about; jo_^r_,this issue is unimportant in comparison to other social ^ advocacy issues; ^ 3<oV* I am too busy; -7 Sv'iS 1 don't know the most effective way to be involved; think i t ' s a hopeless cause; £L /r % I don't know enough about the subject to take a stand; . —__ I'm not interested in social advocacy of any kind; 3. Ip %I'm not interested in nuclear disarmament; —• —• i t ' s too radical; cj J.'VJ- other A FEW MONTHS AGO, THE B.C.A.S.W. TASK FORCE ON PEACE AND DISARMAMENT ASSISTED THE END THE ARMS RACE COALITION BY DISTRIBUTING PEACE VOTER PLEDGE CARDS TO AS MANY SOCIAL WORKERS AS POSSIBLE. THESE CARDS REQUESTED ASSISTANCE IN LOBBYING FEDERAL POLITICIANS ON PEACE AND DISARMAMENT ISSUES. 8. DID YOU RECEIVE A "PEACE VOTER PLEDGE CARD" THIS FALL? YES; NO. 9. IT YES, THERE WRE SEVERAL POSSIBLE WAYS IN WHICH YOU COULD RESPOND. WHICH DID YOU CHOOSE? PLEASE CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY. MumWir/ % _ \ 14" __> I threw i t away; I IM-—-*1 meant to sign and return i t , but didn't; U. SI 1 signed i t and mailed i t back to END THE ARMS RACE; . I signed i t and volunteered to help organize the campaign; \ I signed i t and made a financial contribution; — — I signed i t and volunteered to distribute more cards; I signed i t and volunteered to join my local peace & disarmament riding committee; — — other, specify, 126 SECTION I I . PRIORITIES FOR SOCIAL ADVOCACY. THERE ARE MANY SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH WHICH THE B.C.A.S.W. AND ITS COMMITTEES COULD BECOME INVOLVED. 1. PLEASE COMPARE THE FOLLOWING LIST OF SOCIAL ISSUE AREAS TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY -"HIGHER," "LOWER," OR "EQUAL" IN IMPORTANCE FOR ACTION BY THE ASSOCIATION. IN COMPARISON TO ADDICTIONS; CHILD ABUSE: FAMILY VIOLENCE: NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, I WOULD RATE: °/o '/a '/o HIGHER fa>l LOWER al EQUAL \\ IN IMPORTANCE HIGHER "15* LOWER 1 EQUAL 13 IN IMPORTANCE HIGHER U>T LOWER 11 EQUAL 3&IN IMPORTANCE POVERTY: UNEMPLOYMENT: THE HANDICAPPED: HIGHER *>« LOWER ~t EQUAL JU>"lN IMPORTANCE HIGHER SI LOWER 1 EQUAL 3«» IN IMPORTANCE HIGHER IcO LOWER 3* EQUAL IU> IN IMPORTANCE MENTAL ILLNESS: PROBLEMS OF THE ELDERLY: ADOPTION: HIGHER Ul LOWER EQUAL l l IN IMPORTANCE HIGHER £fe LOWER 34> EQUAL \*\ IN IMPORTANCE HIGHER i*l LOWER ?» EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE MINORITY RIGHTS: NATIVE ISSUES: CIVIL LIBERTIES: HIGHER l»8 LOWER *a EQUAL 30 IN IMPORTANCE HIGHER <W LOWER )S EQUAL 31 IN IMPORTANCE HIGHER LOWER Sfc EQUAL a»IN IMPORTANCE OTHER, SPECIFY: HIGHER LOWER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE WE ARE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT IF THERE IS ANY CORRELATION BETWEEN NON-RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF WORK HOURS AND INTEREST IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT. 2. WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL US IF YOU ARE INVOLVED IN ANY COMMUNITY AND/OR ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES (NOT INCLUDING NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT) AT PRESENT? PLEASE CHECK ANY OF THE FOLLOWING . AREAS IN WHICH YOU ARE PRESENTLY INVOLVED: N u m l o g j r / g / o . s<8 */o work on board(s) of directors of community agency-ies; I •a. 31 2t volunteer (non-board) with community agency-ies; 4. 1 3 5c work with youth group(s), non-religious; \c] ^ Is volunteer with a religious organization; ?£± participate in a social action group; „Q 3k financial and other support for international social * advocacy agencies, i.e. Amnesty or relief agencies; < other, specify 127 S E C T I O N I I I . D E M O G R A P H I C S : THIS SECTION WILL HELP TO PLACE YOU WITHIN THE BROAD SPECTRUM OF B.C.A.S.W. MEMBERS: 1. AGE. YEARS. QveyoJff.'. 4-^.1 L^etxrc, 2. SEX. M ; F . 3. UNIVERSITY DEGREE (S): BA ; BSW ; MA 7 MSW ; PHD ; OTHER_; N/A . (>tl°l0{o) 1 |O^3a%0 4. ARE YOU A REGISTERED SOCIAL WORKER? YES ; NO . 5. JOB TITLE, IF EMPLOYED 6. MY JOB INVOLVES, BRIEFLY 7. NUMBER OF YEARS I HAVE WORKED IN SOCIAL SERVICES OR fluent: lio'S" ftuBvokOLe'. 4-,o u\«omr<, RELATED ACTIVITIES: PAID VOLUNTEER . J r<\r>«e.v 1'—«VTyrs r o t r ^ e : 0 - 1 0 ^ Please count only "the total number of years you have been involved in social services or related activities. For example, a year in which you have done both volunteer and paid employment counts as one year. Related activities might be any human service position, including: child care counsellor, c r i s i s line volunteer, hospital or other vounteer, any number of formal or informal peer counselling positions, or 8. B.C.A.S.W. BRANCH 9. DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN? YES ; NO . a.o£fes°/o"} u t - j s % ; 10. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE? PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JOT DOWN ANY NOTES ON THE BACK OF THIS PAGE. 128 APPENDIX Et THB8IB QUESTIONNAIRE PACKAflff SBCTIOI I. NUCLEAR DISARMAMBIT. 1. NUCLEAR DISARMAMBIT IS AX ISSUB THAT NAT RAISE STROIG EMDTIOIS. PLBASB COBSIDBR THB FOLLOW IIG STATE KBITS AID CIRCLB THB IUMBBR VHICH COMBS THB CLOSEST TO YOUR VIBV. USE THE RATIXG SCALE: 1: VERY LITTLE; 2 - A LITTLB; 3 -SOMEWHAT; 4 - A LOT; 5 - A GREAT DEAL, I/A - MOT APPLY. A) I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON CANADA OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK 1--2--3—4--5--N/A B) I HAVB SEEN ADVERSE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO LIVING UNDER THE NUCLEAR THREAT: ON MY CLIENTS 1--2--3--4--5--5/A ON MY FAMILY 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — N / A ON MYSELF 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 - - 5 ~ N / A C> I BELIEVE WORLD LEADERS CAN BE INFLUENCED TO AGREE TO DISARMAMENT D> I CONSIDER THAT SOCIAL WORKERS ARE QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF THE ARMS RACE ON HUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT E) I BELIEVE THAT THE SURVIVAL OF THE WORLD IS DEPENDENT ON STOPPING THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE F) WHEN I WAS CONTACTED TO BE A PART OF MY COMMUNITY'S DISASTER PLAN, I REALIZED THE MANY SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE ISSUES IN COPING WITH THE RESULTS OF A NUCLEAR WAR G) I CONSIDER THAT THE SOCIAL ISSUES FACING THE WORLD AS A WHOLE ARE AS IMPORTANT TO SOCIAL WORK AS THE SOCIAL ISSUES FACING AN INDIVIDUAL OR COMMUNITY 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 - - N / A 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — N / A 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — N / A 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — N / A 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — N / A H) I BELIEVE THAT MONEY SPENT ON THE ARMS RACE TAKES MONEY AWAY FROM SOCIAL PROGRAMS 1-- 2 — 3 - - 4 — 5 — N / A 1 3 ^ 2. PLBASB COISIDBR THB FOLLOWIIG AID PLACB A CHECK MARK BBSIDB THB RBSPOISB VHICH BBST ODTLIIES TOUR VIBVS. THE B.C.A.S.W. SHOULD: not be in v o l v e d i n nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s at a l l ; create a committee f o r those who are i n t e r e s t e d i n t h i s issue; make i t only a minor part of the B.C.A.S.W.'s s o c i a l advocacy program; make i t a major pa r t of B.C.A.S.V.'s s o c i a l advocacy program; other, s p e c i f y 3. I I THB PAST, SOME ASSOC I ATI O l MEMBERS HAVE I ID I CAT ED A l IITEREST I I FURTHER EDUCATIOI O l THE SUBJECT OF IUCLEAK DISARXAMEIT. IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE TASK FORCE TO KIOV VHICH KIID OF EDUCATIOIAL PROGRAM WOULD BB MOST APPEALIIG TO B.C.A.S.V. MEMBBRS. < PLBASB CHBCK AS MAIY AS APPLY): none; workshops; s e l f - e d u c a t i o n a l packages of d i s c u s s i o n m a t e r i a l s f o r small groups; videos made a v a i l a b l e to groups; n a i l outs from the B.C.A.S.V. o f f i c e of f a c t sheets on peace i s s u e s , a c t i v i t i e s , or developments; knowledgeable speakers a v a i l a b l e t o come to our branch OTHER, please d e s c r i b e _ OTHER, please d e s c r i b e 1 3 3 4. IP 0 XBAIS " 1 0 IMPORTAICB" AID 10 MBAMS "VEBY IMPOST AIT" AID TOO MAY USE AIY IUMBBS II BBTVBRI 0 - 10 , PLBASB RATB THB FOLLOVIIG STRATEGIES FOR OSB BY THE B.C.A.S.V. TASK FORCE 0 1 SOCIAL VORK AID THB PEACE MOVBMBIT. THE B.C.A.S.V. SHOULD: tra i n B.C.A.S.V. members In c l i n i c a l s k i l l s to work with families who are troubled by t h i s issue; support members of the association who decide to place a portion of t h e i r income tax which goes to mili t a r y defense in a special "PEACE TAX" fund; maintain the current B.C.A.S.V. Task Force on Social Work and the Peace Movement; support p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n e f f o r t s to block U.S. warships from entering Vancouver harbour; have the president and/or executive director make public statements of support for nuclear disarmament; develop educational programs for the public about nuclear disarmament; give f i n a n c i a l contributions to nuclear disarmament co a l i t i o n groups; lobby p o l i t i c i a n s to support p o l i c i e s to slow or scale down the nuclear arms race;* support peace walks for nuclear disarmament; support a B.C.A.S.V. banner In the annual VALK FOR PEACE; research nuclear disarmament Issues as they relate to the practice of s o c i a l work; develop an educational program for members about t h i s issue; request B.C. schools of s o c i a l work add nuclear disarm-ament to the school curriculum; lobby p o l i t i c i a n s on nuclear disarmament issues; Join with other nuclear disarmament groups; connect with s o c i a l work associations In other countries; f i n a n c i a l l y support p o l i t i c a l candidates who endorse nuclear disarmament; encourage s o c i a l workers to discuss nuclear disarmament In their workplaces; encourage s o c i a l workers to question their c l i e n t s about possible fears and an x i e t i e s concerning nuclear disarma-ment and the threat of nuclear war; OTHER, please specify OTHER, please specify 5. WOULD YOU PLBASB IOTB YOUR IIVOLVBMEIT II IUCLBAS DISARXAXEIT ISSUES OR ACTIVITIES, IP AIY, BY CHECK1IG OFF AIY ACTIVITY YOU HAVE BIGAGBD I I OVBB THB PAST 18 ltDITHS. peace walks; f u n d - r a i s i n g walks f o r peace, e.g. MOVE-A-THON; family d i s c u s s i o n s about n u c l e a r disarmament; d i s c u s s i o n s with c o l l e a g u e s about nuclear disarmament; workshops or seminars on n u c l e a r disarmament; membership i n a disarmament group or c o a l i t i o n ; purchase of a disarmament button or bumper s t i c k e r ; attendance at Vancouver Peace Symposium - A p r i l , 1986; l e t t e r w r i t i n g r e g a r d i n g n u c l e a r disarmament; viewing of f i l m s about n u c l e a r disarmament; p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n act<s) of c i v i l disobedience t o p r o t e s t nuclear arms; OTHER, please s p e c i f y no nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s . 6 . THERE MAY BE DRAWBACKS TO PARTICIPATION II AIY SOCIAL ADVOCACY PROGRAM. I I YOUR JUDGEMENT, VHICH OF THE FOLLOVIIG COULD IMPEDB INVOLVEMENT BY THE B.C.A.S.V. I I IUCLBAS DISARMAMEIT ACTIVITIES? PLBASB CHECK AIY OF THE FOLLOVIIG THAT EXPRESS YOUR VIBVS: nuclear disarmament i s not a s o c i a l work Issue; the B.C.A.S.V. sho u l d pursue more pr e s s i n g s o c i a l work problems; nuclear disarmament a c t i v i t i e s would cause negative p u b l i c i t y f o r the s o c i a l work p r o f e s s i o n ; nuclear disarmament i s too p o l i t i c a l an Issue f o r the s o c i a l work p r o f e s s i o n ; the s o c i a l work p r o f e s s i o n has nothing unique t o o f f e r e x i s t i n g nuclear disarmament groups; the B.C.A.S.V. l a c k s f i n a n c i a l resources to be i n v o l v e d i n nuclear disarmament; the B.C.A.S.V. has more p r e s s i n g Issues; OTHER, please d e s c r i b e there are no Impediments to a c t i v i t y In t h i s area. 7. SOME OF THB FOLLOVIIG ARE RBASOIS VHT IIDIVIDUAL8 MAT FIID IIVOLVEMEIT II IUCLBAS DISARMAMEIT ACTIVITIES DIFFICULT. PLEASB CHECK AIT STATBMBITS VHICH DBSCSIBB TOUR PRESBIT SITUATIOI. t h i s issue i s too overwhelming t o t h i n k about; t h i s issue i s unimportant i n comparison to other s o c i a l advocacy issues; I am too busy; I don't know the most e f f e c t i v e way to be involved; I think i t ' s a hopeless cause; I don't know enough about the s u b j e c t t o take a stand; I'm not i n t e r e s t e d i n s o c i a l advocacy of any kind; I'm not i n t e r e s t e d i n nuc l e a r disarmament; i t ' s too r a d i c a l ; OTHER A FEW MOHTHS AGO, THE B.C.A.S.V. TASK FORCE OH PEACE AHD DISARMAMEHT ASSISTED THE EHD THE ARMS RACE COALITIOH BY DISTRIBUTIHG PEACE VOTER PLEDGE CARDS TO AS MAHY SOCIAL VORKERS AS POSSIBLE. THESE CARDS REQUESTED ASSISTAHCE IH LOBBYIHG FEDERAL POLITICIAHS OH PEACE AHD DISARMAMENT ISSUES. 8. DID YOU RECEIVE A "PEACE VOTBR PLEDGE CARD" THIS FALL? YBS; HO. 9 . IF YES, THERE VERB SEVERAL POSSIBLB VAYS II VHICH YOU COULD RBSPOID. VHICH DID YOU CHOOSE? PLEASB CHECK AS MAHY AS APPLT. I threw i t away; 1 meant to s i g n and r e t u r n I t , but didn't; I signed It and mailed I t back t o END THE ARMS RACE; I signed i t and v o l u n t e e r e d t o h e l p organize the campaign I signed I t and made a f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n ; I signed i t and v o l u n t e e r e d t o d i s t r i b u t e more cards I signed i t and v o l u n t e e r e d t o J o i n my l o c a l peace & disarmament r i d i n g committee; OTHER, s p e c i f y | 3 l o SBCTIOI II. PRIORITIES POR SOCIAL ADVOCACY. THERE ARE MANY SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES VITH VHICH THE B.C.A.S.V. AND ITS COMMITTEES COULD BECOME INVOLVED. 1. PLBASB COMPARE THE FOLLOVIIG LIST OF SOCIAL ISSUE AREAS TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AID CIRCLB THE APPROPRIATE CATBGORY - "HIGHER,"" LOVER," OR "EQUAL" II IMPORTAICE FOR ACTI01 BY THB ASSOCIATIOI. IN COMPARISON TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, I VOULD RATE: ADDICTIONS: HIGHER LOVER EQUAL II IMPORTANCE CHILD ABUSE: HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE FAMILY VIOLENCE: HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE POVERTY: HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE UNEMPLOYMENT: HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE THE HANDICAPPED: HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE MENTAL ILLNESS: HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE PROBLEMS OF THE ELDERLY: HIGHER LOVER . EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE ADOPTION: HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE MINORITY RIGHTS HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE NATIVE ISSUES HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE CIVIL LIBERTIES HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE OTHER, SPECIFY HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE OTHER, SPECIFY . HIGHER LOVER EQUAL IN IMPORTANCE VE ARE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT IF THERE IS ANY CORRELATION BETVEEN NON-RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF VORK HOURS AND INTEREST IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT. 2 . VOULD YOU PLEASE TELL US IF YOU ARE INVOLVED IN ANY COMMUNITY AID/OR ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES (NOT INCLUDING NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT) AT PRESENT? PLEASE CHECK AIY OF THE FOLLOVI HG AREAS IN VHICH YOU ARE PRESEHTLY INVOLVED: work on board<s> of di r e c t o r s of community agency-ies; _ volunteer <non-board) with community agency-ies; work with youth group<s), non-religious; volunteer with a r e l i g i o u s organization; participate i n a s o c i a l action group; financial and other support for International s o c i a l advocacy agencies, i.e. Amnesty or r e l i e f agencies; OTHER, specify 3 1 SECT 101 I I I . DEMOGRAPHICS: THIS SECTION WILL HELP TO PLACE YOU WITHIN THE BROAD SPECTRUM OF B.C.A.S.W. MEMBERS: 1. AGE. YEARS. 2 . SEX. M ; F 3. UNIVERSITY DEGRBE <S> : BA ; BSW ; MA ; MSW ; OTHER ; N/A ; 4. ARB YOU A REGISTERED SOCIAL WORKER? YES NO. 5. JOB TITLE, IF EMPLOYED 6 . MY JOB INVOLVES, BRIBFLY 7. NUMBER OF YEARS I HAVE WORKED IN SOCIAL SERVICES OR RELATED ACTIVITIES: PAID VOLUNTEER P l e a s e count o n l y the t o t a l number o f y e a r s you have been I n v o l v e d i n s o c i a l s e r v i c e s o r r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . For example, a year i n which you have done both v o l u n t e e r and p a i d employment c o u n t s as one y e a r . R e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s might be any human s e r v i c e p o s i t i o n , i n c l u d i n g : c h i l d c a r e c o u n s e l l o r , c r i s i s l i n e v o l u n t e e r , h o s p i t a l or o t h e r v o l u n t e e r , any number of f o r m a l or i n f o r m a l peer c o u n s e l l i n g p o s i t i o n s , o r 8. B.C.A.S.V. BRANCH 9 . DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN? YES , NO 10. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS TO THIS QUEST IONN AIRE? PLEASE FEEL FREB TO JOT DOVE ANY NOTES ON THB BACK OF THIS PAGE. 138 APPENDIX Ft DESMARNIS ET AL f ! 9 8 « ) QUESTIONNAIRE P A C K A f l B CPEN-ENEED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. What would you say are the most important social issues facing you as a social worker today? 2. To what extent are you personally worried about nuclear disarmament issues? 3. Hew do you think that social work as a profession should be involved in nuclear disarmament issues? 4. In the past two years, have you been involved in any way with n.d. as an issue? If yes, in what ways? 5. What kinds of n.d. activities might you engage in in the future? 6. What n.d. activities should the B.C.A.S.W. as a professional association engage in? 7. Is there anything you'd like to add to this interview? OR... Do you have any other comments you'd like to add? 140 I . GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Age? y e a r s 2. Sex male female 3. Degree(s) c o m p l e t e d : ( p l e a s e check) B a c h e l o r of S o c i a l Work Mas t e r of Soci al Work 4. Year B a c h e l o r o f S o c i a l Work comple ted: 19 Year Master o f S o c i a l Work completed : 19 5. Are you p r e s e n t l y work ing in the f i e l d of s o c i a l work? yes no ( i f no , proceed to #9) 6 . Job T i t l e : 7. My job i n v o l v e s p r i m a r i l y : (check one) d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n s u p e r v i s i o n o f s t a f f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n community o r g a n i z a t i o n o t h e r 8. Number of y e a r s work ing at p resent j o b : y e a r s 9. P r e s e n t s t a t u s : (check pr imary one) s tudent unemployed _employed o u t s i d e f i e l d of s o c i a l work employed w i t h i n f i e l d o f s o c i a l work ( p l e a s e cont inue on page 2) 14-4-10. Are you p r e s e n t l y a member of the B r i t i s h Columbia A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers? yes no 11. I f you answered yes to #10, what y e a r d i d you become a membe r? 12. Are you p r e s e n t l y a member of the A s s o c i a t i o n of P r o f e s s i o n a l S o c i a l Workers? yes no 13. I f you answered yes to #12, what y e a r d i d you become a member? ( p l e a s e c o n t i n u e on page 3) 14-5 I I. SOCIAL ISSUES I n d i c a t e how impor tant the f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are to you as a p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l worker: ( c i r c l e your response) 1 ve ry i mportant impor tant 3 somewhat impor tan t 4 not impor tan t 1. Spouse Abuse 2. C h i l d Abuse 3. Drug A d d i c t i o n 4. Unemployment 5. N u c l e a r Disarmament 6 . A c q u i r e d Immune D e f i c i e n c y Syndrome(AlDS) 7. Sexual A s s a u l t 8. Na t ive Indian Land Cla ims 9. Aging 10. C i v i l R ights 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 ( p l e a s e c o n t i n u e on page 4) i n ATTITUDES TOWARD NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n examines persona l and p r o f e s s i o n a l a t t i t u d e s towards n u c l e a r d isarmament . Ques t ions #1 through #12 a d d r e s s e s p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s and q u e s t i o n s #13 through #23 address p r o f e s -s i o n a l a t t i t u d e s . A. PERSONAL ATTITUDES: I n d i c a t e your l e v e l o f agreement with the f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s : 1 s t r o n g l y di sagree moderate ly di sagree 3 4 5 n e i t h e r agree modera te ly s t r o n g l y nor d i s a g r e e agree agree 1. I am concerned about the p o s s i b i l i t y of a n u c l e a r war. 2. I would r a t h e r be i n v o l v e d i n i s s u e s o ther than n u c l e a r d isarmament . 3. Fear of n u c l e a r war i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y damagei ng. 4. I b e l i e v e n u c l e a r disarmament i s b a s i c a l l y a n t i - A m e r i can. 5. I di not b e l i e v e there w i l l be a n u c l e a r war. 6. NUc lear disarmament i s a p e r s o n a l c o n c e r n . 7. Canada has l i t t l e i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e regard -ing n u c l e a r disarmament. 8. I am concerned f o r my f u t u r e due to the arms r a c e . - _ 9. I b e l i e v e the Canadian government knows what i s best to do in terms o f the arms r a c e . 10. I am a p a c i f i s t . 11. I am concerned f o r the s u r v i v a l of the p l a n e t . 12. I am concerned f o r the f u t u r e of my c h i l d r e n . 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 ( p l e a s e con t inue on page 5) B. PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES : I n d i c a t e your l e v e l of agreement wi th the f o l l o w i n g s ta tements 1 s t r o n g l y di sagree moderate ly di s ag ree n e i t h e r agree nor d i s a g r e e modera te ly ag ree s t r o n g l y ag ree 13. The p r o f e s s i o n of s o c i a l work s h o u l d not p o l i t i c a l s t a n d s . 14. Fear of n u c l e a r war i s a c l i n i c a l c o u n s e l i n g i ss ue. 15. The p r o f e s s i o n of s o c i a l work cannot o f f e r any-t h i n g uniques to the a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g n u c l e a r disarmament g r o u p s . 16. N u c l e a r disarmament i s not w i t h i n the domain of s o c i a l work. 17. There are too many o t h e r i s s u e s the s o c i a l work p r o f e s s i o n needs to deal w i th b e f o r e a d d r e s s i n g n u c l e a r disarmament. 18. Money i s being d i r e c t e d to m i l i t a r y c o s t s at the expense of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . 19. I f we do not s top the arms r a c e , e v e r y t h i n g e l s e w i l l be p e r i p h e r a l . 20. N u c l e a r disarmament s h o u l d be an i s s u e s f o r the p r o f e s s i o n of. s o c i a l work. 21. N u c l e a r disarmament i s a s o c i a l i s s u e t h e r e f o r e a s o c i a l work i s s u e . 22 . The p r o f e s s i o n of s o c i a l work has more i n f l u e n c e to a f f e c t change than does the i n d i v i d u a l . 23. Involvement in n u c l e a r disarmament may c r e a t e bad p u b l i c i t y and the p r o f e s s i o n of s o c i a l work has had enough bad p u b l i c i t y . 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 ,2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 ( p l e a s e c o n t i n u e on page 6) m IV. CHANGE STRATEGIES The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n examines p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l a t t i t u d e s towards change s t r a t e g i e s wi th regards to n u c l e a r disarmament. Q u e s t i o n s #1 through #11 address persona l a t t i t u d e s and q u e s t i o n s #12 through #26 address p r o f e s s i o n a l a t t i t u d e s . A. PERSONAL ATTITUDES Of the f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s , how l i k e l y would you be to engage in t h e s e : ( c i r c l e responses ) 1 2 3 4 5 very very u n l i k e l y u n l i k e l y maybe l i k e l y l i k e l y 1. J o i n a n u c l e a r disarmament g roup . 1 2 3 4 5 2. J o i n the B . C . A . S . W . Task Force on Peace 1 2 3 4 5 and N u c l e a r Disarmament. 3. O r g a n i z e groups of f r i e n d s to d i s c u s s t h i s 1 2 3 4 5 t o p i c . 4. Suppor t p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s who endorse n u c l e a r 1 2 3 4 5 di sarmament. 5. Wr i te l e t t e r s to Canadian government i n d i c a t - 1 2 3 4 5 ing s u p p o r t f o r n u c l e a r d isarmament . 5. Meet wi th y o u r M.P. o r M . L . A . and make your 1 2 3 4 5 o p i n i o n s known. 7. Encourage y o u r p l a c e of employment to have a 1 2 3 4 5 s t a f f meet ing f o c u s i n g on n u c l e a r disarmament. 8. P a r t i c i p a t e in peace r a l l y s . 1 2 3 4 5 9. P a r t i c i p a t e i n p r o t e s t marches. 1 2 3 4 5 10. P a r t i c i p a t e i n ac ts of c i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e . 1 2 3 4 5 11. Wr i t e l e t t e r s to l o c a l newspapers i n response 1 2 3 4 5 to a r t i c l e s p u b l i s h e d on n u c l e a r disarmament. ( p l e a s e c o n t i n u e on page 7) 14-^ B. PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES With regards to n u c l e a r d isarmament , what p r i o r i t i e s s h o u l d the p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n g i v e to p a r t i c i p a t e in these a c t i v i t i e s ( c i r c l e response) 1 h igh p r i o r i t y some p r i o r i t y no p r i o r i t y 12. W r i t i n g l e t t e r s to the Canadian government i n d i c a t -ing suppor t f o r n u c l e a r d isarmament . 13. A p p e a r i n g before government committees and p resen t -ing b r i e f s . 14. Meet ing with l e g i s l a t o r s and making o p i n i o n s known, 15. E n t e r i n g c o a l i t i o n s wi th o t h e r n u c l e a r disarmament g r o u p s . 16. O r g a n i z i n g p u b l i c meet ings to educate people about n u c l e a r disarmament. 17. O r g a n i z i n g m e e t i n g s / 1 e c t u r e s to educate s o c i a l w o r k e r s . 18. C o n t r i b u t i n g d o l l a r s to p o l i t i c a l c a n d i d a t e s who endorse n u c l e a r d isarmament . 19. P u b l i c l y e n d o r s i n g p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s who endorse n u c l e a r disarmament. 20. P u b l i c l y c r i t i c i z e p o l i t i c a l f i g u e s who do not endorse n u c l e a r d isarmament . 21. O r g a n i z i n g peace r a l l y s . 22. Encourag ing s o c i a l workers to d i s c u s s n u c l e a r d i s -armament, in t h e i r p l a c e o f work. 23. Encourag ing s o c i a l workers to i n c l u d e n u c l e a r war ( thoughts and f e e l i n g s ) as p a r t o f the c l i e n t assessment r o u t i n e . 24. Encourag ing s o c i a l a g e n c i e s to have pampftlets and p o s t e r s on n u c l e a r disarmament a v a i l a b l e i n the r e c e p t i o n a r e a s . 25 . O r g a n i z i n g p r o t e s t marches . 26. S u p p o r t i n g acts o f c i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e . ( p l e a s e c o n t i n u e on page 8) [SO V. PRESENT LEVEL OF ACTIVITIES The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n dea ls with your l e v e l of a c t i v i t y over the pas t 24 months. Over the past 24 months, have y o u : (p lease c i r c l e ) 1 never once or twice 5 times 10 times more than 11 t imes 1. P a r t i c i p a t e d i n a peace r a l l y . 2. W r i t t e n a l e t t e r to the f e d e r a l or p r o v i n c i a l government i n d i c a t i n g your o p i n i o n on n u c l e a r di sarmament. 3. A t tended l e c t u r e s / m e e t i n g s regard ing the arms race or r e l a t e d t o p i c s . 4. O r g a n i z e d a meet ing cen te red on the n u c l e a r disarmament i s s u e s . 5. J o i n e d a n u c l e a r disarmament group. 6. D i s c u s s e d n u c l e a r disarmament at your p l a c e of work. 7. D i s c u s s e d n u c l e a r disarmament wi th f r i e n d s . 8. Watched a f i l m ( T V / T h e a t e r ) on the arms race or r e l a t e d t o p i c . 9 . P a r t i c i p a t e d in a p r o t e s t march. 10. P a r t i c i p a t e d i n an ac t of c i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e wi th regards to n u c l e a r disarmament. 11. D i s c u s s e d wi th y o u r c l i e n t s , what t h e i r thoughts and f e e l i n g s were on n u c l e a r war or n u c l e a r d isarmament . 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 P l e a s e i n d i c a t e s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s / p o l i t i c a l groups you p r e s e n t l y be long t o . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I s i SOCIAL ISSUES MEAN STD. DEV. MIN. MAX C h i l d Abuse 1 .33 .57 1 .00 3. 00 Un emp 1 o ymen t 1 .55 .71 1 . 00 4 . 00 Spouse Abuse 1 • 67 .82 1 . 00 4 . 00 S e x u a l A s s a u l t 1 .69 .78 1 .00 3. 00 C i v i l R i g h t s 1 .71 .83 1 .00 4 . 00 N u c l e a r Disarmament 1 . 8 6 . 90 1 . 00 4. 00 Age i n g 2 .19 .74 1 . 00 3. 00 Drug A d d i c t i o n 2 • 21 .87 1 .00 4. 00 A c q u i r e d Immune D e f i c i e n c y Sydrome (AIDS) 2 .33 . 90 1 .00 4. 00 N a t i v e I n d i a n Land C l a i m s 2 .48 .99 1 . 00 4 . 00 l = v e r y i m p o r t a n t 2 = i m p o r t a n t 3=somewhat i m p o r t a n t 4=not i m p o r t a n t n = 42 PERSONAL ATTITUDE SCALE CORRELATION = I am a p a c i f i s t .63 I am c o n c e r n e d f o r my f u t u r e due to the arms r a c e . .54 N u c l e a r disarmament i s a p e r s o n a l c o n c e r n . .45 F e a r of n u c l e a r war i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y damaging. .42 I am c o n c e r n e d about the p o s s i b i l i t y of n u c l e a r war. .37 Canada has l i t t l e i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e r e g a r d i n g .33 n u c l e a r d i s a r m a m e n t . I am c o n c e r n e d f o r the f u t u r e o f my c h i l d r e n . .29 I b e l i e v e t h e C a n a d i a n government knows b e s t what t o .25 do i n terms of the arms r a c e . I am c o n c e r n e d f o r the s u r v i v a l o f t h e p l a n e t . .25 I would r a t h e r be i n v o l v e d i n i s s u e s o t h e r t h a n n u c l e a r .22 d i s a r m a m e n t . I do not b e l i e v e t h e r e w i l l be a n u c l e a r war. .17 ( s c o r e s were r e v e r s e d s c o r e d ) N u c l e a r d i sarmament i s b a s i c a l l y a n t i - A m e r i c a n . .17 153 PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE SCALE CORRELATION » N u c l e a r d isarmament s h o u l d be an i s s u e f o r the .75 p r o f e s s i o n o f s o c i a l work. N u c l e a r disarmament i s a s o c i a l i s s u e t h e r e f o r e a .74 s o c i a l work i s s u e . I f we do not s t o p the arms r a c e , e v e r y t h i n g e l s e .54 w i l l be p e r i p h e r a l . The p r o f e s s i o n has more i n f l u e n c e t o a f f e c t change .53 t h a n d o e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l . F e a r o f n u c l e a r war i s a c l i n i c a l c o u n s e l l i n g i s s u e . .52 N u c l e a r disarmament i s not w i t h i n t h e domain of s o c i a l .38 work, ( r e v e r s e d s c o r e d ) The p r o f e s s i o n of s o c i a l work s h o u l d not t a k e p o l i t i - .36 c a l s t a n d s ( r e v e r s e d s c o r e d ) Money i s b e i n g d i r e c t e d to m i l i t a r y c o s t s at the .17 e x p e n s e o f s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . The p r o f e s s i o n of s.w. can not o f f e r a n y t h i n g u n i q u e -.10 to t h e a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g n u c l e a r disarmament g r o u p s . I n v o l v e m e n t may c r e a t e bad p u b l i c i t y and the p r o f e s s i o n has had enough bad p u b l i c i t y . -.21 T h e r e a r e t o o many o t h e r i s s u e s b e s i d e s n u c l e a r -.24 d i s a r m a m e n t t h a t we s h o u l d a t t e n d to f i r s t . PERSONAL A C T I V I T I E S MEAN S T . D E V . M I N . MAX, S u p p o r t p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s who e n d o r s e n u c l e a r d i s a r m a m e n t . 4 . 55 . 7 4 2 . 00 5 . 00 P a r t i c i p a t e i n p e a c e r a l l y s . 4 . 33 . 95 2 . 00 5 . 0 0 P a r t i c i p a t e i n p r o t e s t m a r c h e s . 4 . 12 1 . 04 2 . 00 5 . 0 0 W r i t e l e t t e r s t o C a n a d i a n g o v e r n m e n t t o i n d i c a t e s u p p o r t f o r n . d . 3 . 74 1 . 1 5 1 . 0 0 5 . 00 J o i n a n u c l e a r d i s a r m a m e n t g r o u p . 3 . 48 1 . 2 7 1 . 00 5 . 00 J o i n t h e BCASW T a s k F o r c e o n P e a c e S n u c l e a r D i s a r m a m e n t . 3 . 14 1 . 2 4 1 . 00 5 . 00 W r i t e l e t t e r s t o n e w s p a p e r s i n r e s p o n s e t o a r t i c l e s . 3 . 10 1 . 05 1 . 00 5 . 0 0 M e e t w i t h y o u r M . P . / M . L . A . a n d make o p i n i o n s k n o w n . 3. 02 1 . 1 6 1 . 00 5 . 00 E n c o u r a g e p l a c e o f e m p l o y m e n t t o h a v e a s t a f f m e e t i n g f o c u s i n g o n n . d . 2 . 88 1 . 02 1 . 0 0 5 . 00 O r g a n i z e f r i e n d s t o d i s c u s s n . d . 2 . 85 1 . 30 1 . 00 5 . 0 0 P a r t i c i p a t e i n a c t s o f c i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e . 2 . 37 1 . 0 9 1 . 00 5 . 00 l = v e r y u n l i k e l y 2 = u n l i k e l y 3=maybe 4 = l i k e l y 5 = v e r y l i k e l y I S 5" PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES MEAN ST.DEV. MIN. MAX. Enter c o a l i t i o n s with other nuclear disarmament groups. 1.45 .55 1.00 3. .00 Write l e t t e r s t o government i n d i c a t i n g support f o r n.d. 1.52 .55 1.00 3. 00 Organize meetings t o educate s o c i a l workers. 1.55 .67 1.00 3. 00 Present b r i e f s t o government committees. 1.57 .63 1.00 3. 00 Meet with l e g i s l a t o r s and make opinions known. 1.64 .62 1.00 3. 00 Encourage s o c i a l workers to discuss n.d. a t place of work. 1.76 .62 1.00 3. 00 Encourage s o c i a l agencies to have pamphlets an n.d. a v a i l a b l e i n reception area. 1.78 .65 1.00 3. 00 P u b l i c l y endorse p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s who support n.d. 1.78 .79 1.00 3. 00 Organize peace r a l l y s . 1.80 .64 1.00 3. 00 Organize meetings t o educate p u b l i c . 1.83 .70 1.00 3. 00 P u b l i c l y c r i t i s i z e p o l i t i c a l f i g u r e s who do not endorse nuclear clisarmament. 1.95 .70 1.00 3. 00 Organize p r o t e s t marches. 2.14 .65 1.00 3. 00 Encourage s o c i a l workers to include f e a r of nuclear war i n c l i e n t assessments. 2.30 .69 1.00 3. 00 Contribute money t o p o l i t i c a l candidate who support nuclear disarmament. 2.36 .66 1.00 3. 00 Support a c t s of c i v i l disobedience. 2.55 .55 1.00 3. 00 l=high p r i o r i t y 2=some p r i o r i t y 3=no p r i o r i t y PRESENT LEVEL OF ACTIVITY NEVER 1 - 2X 3 - 5X 6 - 10X more than 11 X Participate in a peace rally. 13 18 8 3 -Written letters to government indicating support of n.d. 26 13 2 1 -Attended lectures/meetings on the arms race. 12 17 9 1 3 Organized a meeting on nuclear disarmament. 37 3 - 1 1 Joined a nuclear disarmament group. 28 9 2 2 -Discussed nuclear disarmament at place of work. 13 12 8 5 4 Discussed nuclear disarmament with friends. 4 9 8 10 11 Watched films on the arms race or related topics. 4 9 14 9 6 Attended a protest march. 24 12 5 1 -Participated in an act of c i v i l disobedience. 42 — — — — 157 APPENDIX Gt DESMARNIS RT AL f!9fl71 QUESTIONNAIRE PACKAflB 1 ^ QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE FOLLOWING, WHAT NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITIES, I F ANY, HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN OVER THE PAST 18 MONTHS? peace w a l k s f u n d - r a i s i n g w a l k s f o r p e a c e , e.g. move-a-thon f a m i l y d i s c u s s i o n s about n u c l e a r disarmament d i s c u s s i o n s about n u c l e a r disarmament w i t h c o l l e a g u e s workshops on n u c l e a r disarmament membership i n a n u c l e a r disarmament group purc h a s e o f a n u c l e a r disarmament b u t t o n o r bumper s t i c k e r a t t e n d a n c e a t Vancouver Peace Symposium - A p r i l , 1986 l e t t e r w r i t i n g r e g a r d i n g n u c l e a r disarmament v i e w i n g o f f i l m s / m o v i e s a b o u t n u c l e a r disarmament p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n an a c t ( s ) o f c i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e t o p r o t e s t n u c l e a r arms no n u c l e a r disarmament a c t i v i t i e s What a d d i t i o n a l n u c l e a r disarmament i s s u e s / a c t i v i t i e s have you been i n v o l v e d i n ? UoO SOME OF THE FOLLOWING ARE REASONS WHY INDIVIDUALS MAY FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BECOME INVOLVED IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITIES. DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY TO YOU? I t h i n k n u c l e a r disarmament i s t o o overwhelming t o c o n s i d e r I t h i n k n u c l e a r disarmament i s u n i m p o r t a n t i n comparison t o o t h e r s o c i a l work i s s u e s I am t o o busy I don't know t h e most e f f e c t i v e way t o be i n v o l v e d I t h i n k n u c l e a r disarmament i s a h o p e l e s s cause I don't know enough about n u c l e a r disarmament t o t a k e a s t a n d I'm not i n t e r e s t e d i n n u c l e a r disarmament I t h i n k n u c l e a r disarmament i s t o o r a d i c a l I do n o t t h i n k n u c l e a r disarmament w i l l s o l v e w o r l d problems I t h i n k n u c l e a r disarmament w o u l d l«ave t h e w e s t e r n w o r j d v u l n e r a b l e I have o t h e r p r i o r i t i e s What o t h e r r e a s o n s make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r you t o become i n v o l v e d i n n u c l e a r disarmament i s s u e s ? WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IMPEDE THE B.C.A.S.W. FROM FURTHER INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACTIVITIES? PLEASE CHECK ANY OF THE FOLLOWING THAT EXPRESSES YOUR VIEW. N u c l e a r disarmament i s not a s o c i a l work i s s u e The B.C.A.S.W. s h o u l d pursue more p r e s s i n g s o c i a l work problems N u c l e a r disarmament a c t i v i t i e s w ould cause n e g a t i v e p u b l i c i t y f o r t h e s o c i a l work p r o f e s s i o n N u c l e a r disarmament i s t o o p o l i t i c a l an i s s u e f o r t h e s o c i a l work p r o f e s s i o n The s o c i a l work p r o f e s s i o n has n o t h i n g u n i q u e t o o f f e r e x i s t i n g n u c l e a r disarmament groups The B.C.A.S.W. l a c k s f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t o be i n v o l v e d i n n u c l e a r disarmament The B.C.A.S.W. has more p r e s s i n g i s s u e s There a r e no d i f f i c u l t i e s What e l s e might impede t h e B.C.A.S.W. from f u r t h e r i n v o l v e m e n t i n n u c l e a r disarmament a c t i v i t i e s ? ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10, I F 1 MEANS NOT IMPORTANT AND 10 MEANS VERY IMPORTANT, PLEASE RATE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STRATEGIES FOR POSSIBLE USE BY THE B.C.A.S.W. I N DEALING WITH NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, s u p p o r t members o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n who d e c i d e t o p l a c e a p o r t i o n o l t h e i r income t a x w h i c h goes t o m i l i t a r y d e f e n se i n a s p e c i a l 'peace t a x ' fund m a i n t a i n t h e c u r r e n t B.C.A.S.W. Task F o r c e d e a l i n g w i t h n u c l e a r disarmament s u p p o r t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n e f f o r t s t o b l o c k U . S . war s h i p s from e n t e r i n g t h e Vancouver h a r b o u r have t h e B.C.A.S.W. P r e s i d e n t / E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r make p u b l i c statements o f s u p p o r t f o r n u c l e a r disarmament d e v e l o p e d u c a t i o n a l programs f o r B.C.A.S.W. members about n u c l e a r disarmament d e v e l o p e d u c a t i o n programs f o r t h e p u b l i c about n u c l e a r disarmament g i v e f i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o n u c l e a r disarmament g r o u p s l o b b y p o l i t i c i a n s t o s u p p o r t n u c l e a r disarmament i s s u e s s u p p o r t a B.C.A.S.W. banner i n t h e a n n u a l w a l k s f o r peace promote awareness o f and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the A p r i l peace w a l k s r e s e a r c h n u c l e a r disarmament i s s u e s as t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f S o c i a l Work j o i n w i t h o t h e r n u c l e a r disarmament groups connect w i t h S o c i a l Work a s s o c i a t i o n s i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s f i n a n c i a l l y s u p p o r t p o l i t i c a l c a n d i d a t e s who endorse n u c l e a r disarmament encourage s o c i a l w o r k e r s t o d i s c u s s n u c l e a r disarmament i n t h e i r work p l a c e s encourage s o c i a l w o r k e r s t o q u e s t i o n t h e i r c l i e n t s about p o s s i b l e f e a r s and a n x i e t i e s c o n c e r n i n g n u c l e a r disarmament and t h e t h r e a t o f n u c l e a r war. re q u e s t t h a t the B.C. s c h o o l s o f s o c i a l work add n u c l e a r disarmament t o t h e s c h o o l c u r r i c u l u m . What o t h e r s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d t h e B.C.A.S.W. t a k e t o promote n u c l e a r disarmament? P l e a s e n o t e and r a t e t h e s e . Ib3 IN YOUR JUDGEMENT, HOW IMPORTANT I S EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES COMPARED TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT? CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY. a d d i c t i o n s : HIGHER LOWER EQUAL c h i l d s e x u a l abuse: HIGHER LOWER EQUAL f a m i l y v i o l e n c e : HIGHER LOWER EQUAL p o v e r t y : HIGHER LOWER EQUAL unemployment: HIGHER LOWER EQUAL t h e handicapped: HIGHER LOWER EQUAL ment a l i l l n e s s ; HIGHER LOWER EQUAL problems o f t h e e l d e r l y : HIGHER LOWER EQUAL a d o p t i o n : HIGHER LOWER EQUAL a c q u i r e d immune d e f i c i e n c y syndrome: HIGHER LOWER EQUAL c i v i l l i b e r t i e s : HIGHER LOWER EQUAL n a t i v e i s s u e s : HIGHER LOWER EQUAL m i n o r i t y r i g h t s : HIGHER LOWER EQUAL What o t h e r i s s u e s a r e o f impo r t a n c e t o you? P l e a s e add and t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r y . HIGHER LOWER EQUAL HIGHER LOWER EQUAL HIGHER LOWER EQUAL HIGHER LOWER EQUAL DO YOU THINK THE ISSUE OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT HAS HAD ANY EFFECT ON YOUR FAMILY? I F SO, PLEASE ELABORATE. 11*4-WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS? DEMOGRAPHICS: AGE YEARS SEX M F EMPLOYMENT STATUS UNIVERSITY DEGREE(S) : BA BSW MA MSW OTHER NA. ARE YOU A REGISTERED SOCIAL WORKER? YES NO JOB TITLE, IF EMPLOYED MY JOB INVOLVES, OR INVOLVED, BRIEFLY NUMBER OF YEARS I HAVE WORKED IN SOCIAL SERVICES OR RELATED ACTIVITIES: PAID YEARS; VOLUNTEER YEARS B.C.A.S.W. BRANCH DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN? YES NO 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097359/manifest

Comment

Related Items