The Effect of Psychological Distance on Willingness to Engage in Ideologically Based Violence

Research on the cognitive and decision-making processes of individuals who choose to engage in ideologically based violence is vital. Our research examines how abstract and concrete construal mindsets affect likelihood to engage in ideologically based violence. Construal Level Theory (CLT) states that an abstract mindset (high-level construal), as opposed to a concrete mindset (low-level construal), is associated with a greater likelihood of engaging in goal-oriented, value-motivated behaviors. Assuming that ideologically based violence is goal-oriented, we hypothesized that high-level construal should result in an increased likelihood of engaging in ideologically based violence. In the pilot study we developed and tested 24 vignettes covering controversial topics and assessed them on features such as relatability, emotional impact, and capacity to elicit a violent reaction. The ten most impactful vignettes were selected for use in the primary investigations. The two primary investigations examined the effect of high- and low-level construal manipulations on self-reported likelihood of engaging in ideologically based violence. Self-reported willingness was measured through an ideological violence assessment. Data trends implied that participants were engaged in the study, as they reported a higher willingness to engage in ideologically based violence when they had a higher passion for the vignette's social issue topic. Our results did not indicate a significant relationship between construal manipulations and level of passion for a topic.

MULTI-UNIT ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION QUANTITATIVE HEALTH OBJECTIVES: A SAFETY GOAL POLICY ANALYSIS USING MODELS FROM STATE-OF-THE-ART REACTOR CONSEQUENCE ANALYSES

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission implemented a safety goal policy in response to the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. This policy addresses the question “How safe is safe enough?” by specifying quantitative health objectives (QHOs) for comparison with results from nuclear power plant (NPP) probabilistic risk analyses (PRAs) to determine whether proposed regulatory actions are justified based on potential safety benefit. Lessons learned from recent operating experience—including the 2011 Fukushima accident—indicate that accidents involving multiple units at a shared site can occur with non-negligible frequency. Yet risk contributions from such scenarios are excluded by policy from safety goal evaluations—even for the nearly 60% of U.S. NPP sites that include multiple units. This research develops and applies methods for estimating risk metrics for comparison with safety goal QHOs using models from state-of-the-art consequence analyses to evaluate the effect of including multi-unit accident risk contributions in safety goal evaluations.