A Failure of Imagination

In reviewing past poll results, I came across a Gallup survey that illustrates how difficult it can be to interpret what people are really thinking. One of the questions was designed to measure whether people would ever support the use of nuclear weapons by the United States.

Can you think of any circumstance where the U.S. should use nuclear weapons against an enemy, or should the U.S. never use nuclear weapons?

BASED ON 510 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A; ±5 PCT. PTS.

By a 2-to-1 margin, respondents indicated the United States should "never" use nuclear weapons. The results here seem quite clear, and the margin substantial. These results appear to show decisive American public opinion against any use of nuclear weapons.

Subsequent to this question, Gallup asked respondents, if the United States were attacked by terrorists using nuclear weapons, would the country be justified, or not justified, in using nuclear weapons against 1) training camps and other facilities used by the terrorists, and 2) major cities in countries that harbor terrorists?

The results of these hypothetical questions show that, contrary to the initial question, a majority of Americans would support U.S. use of nuclear weapons -- at least in retaliation to a nuclear attack on this country.

If the U.S. were attacked by terrorists using nuclear weapons, do you think the United States would be justified -- or not justified -- in using nuclear weapons against -- [ITEMS ROTATED]?

BASED ON  510 NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM A; ±5 PCT. PTS.

Training camps and other facilities used by the terrorists that the U.S. believes were responsible for the attack

Major cities in countries that harbor the terrorists the U.S. believes were responsible for the attack

Apparently, when respondents were initially asked if they could "think of any circumstances" in which the United States might use nuclear weapons, they just didn't think of a nuclear attack on the United States. Perhaps they were thinking instead of a situation similar to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, when the United States retaliated by attacking Afghanistan -- but with conventional, not nuclear, weaponry.

Whatever their actual state of mind, when reminded specifically that other countries or groups might attack this country using nuclear weapons, many respondents then changed their minds -- they could indeed think of circumstances in which the United States might also use nuclear weapons.

Of course, most of the people who initially supported U.S. use of nuclear weapons also felt the United States would be justified in using such weapons to retaliate against a terrorist nuclear attack. But even among the initial opponents of nuclear weapons, a clear majority, 59%, supported nuclear retaliation against terrorist training facilities, while just 38% remained opposed.

Opponents to the use of nuclear weapons were more evenly divided when asked if the United States would be justified in retaliating by striking at cities in countries that harbored the terrorists -- still, a plurality (49%) said such attacks would be justified, while 47% disagreed.

The Limits of General Questions

One lesson reaffirmed by these apparently conflicting results on public opinion about nuclear weapons is that general questions often produce misleading results. When people are asked a hypothetical question about what they would think under any circumstances, they just don't think of all the possibilities.

We find the same situation when we ask people if they think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances. Last May when we asked that question, 24% of respondents chose "legal under any circumstances," while 19% chose "illegal in all circumstances" -- a response pattern that has been fairly consistent over the past several years. However, previous surveys have shown that when people are presented with some specific reasons why a woman might have an abortion, their complete support or complete opposition does not necessarily persist.

Substantial numbers of complete supporters say abortions should not be legal in the last trimester of a pregnancy, or if they are undertaken only because the mother doesn't want to take care of the baby. Similarly, substantial numbers of people who say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances nevertheless say they would support an abortion if the woman's life or physical health is in danger, or if the baby would be physically or mentally impaired.

When people project their support or opposition for any policy under "all" circumstances, beware. Many respondents just haven't imagined what all those circumstances might be.