Civil Defense Systems: Social Impact and ... - The Black Vault

UNCLASSIFIEDDOC REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY SEARCH CONTROL No. /lMML7Aw-687 361 15/3 5/11PITTSBURGH UNIV PA DEPT OF SOCIOLOGYCIVIL DEFENSE FAVORABILITY:ANALYSIS,A CRITICAL(U)DLSCRIPTIVE NOTE: SUMMARY REPT.,JUL 68 146P MYERS*HOWARD P. ICONTRACT: DAmCzO-67-C"ClZI2 NSF-6113O 9UNCLASSIFIED REPORTDESCRIPTORS: (*CIVIL DEFENSE SYSTEMS# *PUBLICOPINION), STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, PROTECTION,14UCLEAR EXPLOSIONS, FALLOUT SHELTERS, SOCIOLOGY*ATTITUDES(UlBY LOCATING PEOPLE IN TERMS OF A DISTINCTIONBETWEEN CIVIL DEFENSE FAVORABILITY AS A SOC!ALPRESCRIPTION AND CIVIL DEFENSE FAVORABILITY AS ASOCIAL ISSUE, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO SPECIFY TENDENCIESIN TERMS OF THE VARIABLES THAT WERE THE FOCI OF THISANALYSIS- HIGHLY INFORMED PEOPLE WHO DISAGREEDTHAT THE POOERS OF THE FEDERAL iOVERNMENT AREEACESSIVE SHOWED TENDENCIES TO OBSERVE SOCIALPRESCRIPTIONS (TOOK PROTECTIVE STEPS IN THE CASE OFNUCLEAR ATTACK) AND TO SUPPORT SOCIAL ISSUES(FAVORED THE BUILDING OF FALLOUT SHELTERS).LOW6Y INFORMED PEOPLE AHO AGREED THAT THE POWERSARE EXCESSIVE 31OWED JUST THE OPPOSITE TENDENCIES.PEOPLE WHO WERE HIGHLY INFORMED BUT WHO AGREED ANDPEOPLE OHO WERE LOWLY INFORMED dUT WHO DISAGREEDSHOWED mIAED TENDENCIES. FOR THE LATTER, SUPPORTFOR SHELTER BUILDING WAS LARGELY A CONVENTIONALIZEDRESPONSE- FOR THE FORMER, OPPOSITION WAS NOT AREFLECTION OF DEFIANCE TOhARDS A PARTICULAR SOCIALINSrITUTIONe IT WAS THE ARTICULATION OF A POSITIONIN *HICH A CERTAIN CONTROVERSY WAS pERCEIVEor(AUTHOR)(U)121UNCLASSIFIED/ZMmL?