Advertisement

Fearing the Army and the Enemy

Psychological Explanation of the Dutch Sociopolitical Reality
  • Hendrik J. C. Rebel

Abstract

Enemy images are supposed to be core concepts in political judgment on international relations. With their prejudicial character they are easily considered as amendable personality traits, whose existence is either due to personal flaws or to biased information from officials and press organs. “War starts in the minds of man,” says the preamble of UNESCO. This specimen of tacit conviction normally functions as untested preliminary for quite a few attempts at explaining thoughts about peace and security. Even arms races are conceived as a direct offspring of enemy images, without any proof. The question is whether one can seriously use a concept in science in such an indiscriminate manner. Posing this question is answering it. We will have to develop a theory about the relationship of a subject with his international political environment, in order to explain opinion data such as enemy image.

Keywords

Behavioral Intention Belief System Dutch Population Cognitive Dissonance Saturated Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelson, R.P., Rosenberg, M.J. (1971). Symbolic psycho-logic, a model of attitude cognition. In P. Suedfeld (Ed.), Attitude change, the competing views. Chicago/New York: Aldine/Atherton, 86–115.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson G. (1980). Mind and nature, a necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bem D. (1965). An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bem D. (1967). Self perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review 74, 188–200.Google Scholar
  6. Bem D. (1971). Attitudes as self descriptions: Another look at the attitude behaviour link. In K. Thomas (Ed.).Google Scholar
  7. Berghahn, V R (1979). Militarism, the history of a debate, 1861–1979. Leamington Spa: Berg Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Berlinger D. (1980). Review of research in education. American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  9. Bieri J., Atkins A.L., Briar S., Lobeck R., Millar H., Tripodi T., The nature of cognitive structures. In P. Warr (Ed.), Thought and personality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. Billig, M. (1986). Political psychology and social psychological theory. In Brouwer, J. Van Ginniken, Hagendoorn, Meloen (Eds.), Political psychology in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Mola Russa.Google Scholar
  11. Blumler, J.G., Katz, E (Eds.) (1974). The uses of mass communication. Beverly Hills/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Braudel, F. (1969). Ecrits sur l’histoire. Paris: Champs Flammarion.Google Scholar
  13. Brinks, J. (1986). Determinants for thinking about armament. In Brouwer et al. (Eds.), pp. 154–162.Google Scholar
  14. Brouwer M., Van Ginniken J., Hagendoorn A.Meloen J. (Eds.) (1986). Political psychology in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Mola Russa.Google Scholar
  15. Brouwer, M., Tabak, L. (1987). Ideology as determinant of voting behavior: The validity of self-judgment. Paper presented at the 10th International Scientific Congress of ISPP in San Francisco.Google Scholar
  16. Buckley, W. (Ed.) (1976). Modern systems research for the behavioral scientist. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  17. Burstein, L. (1980). The analysis of multi-level data in educational research and evaluation. In D. Berlinger (Ed.), Review of research in education, American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  18. Cattell, R. (1967). The scientific analysis of personality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, J.C. (1973). Wherefrom and whereto? In J. Knutson (Ed.).Google Scholar
  20. Dooyeweerd, H. (1953). A new critique of theoretical thought. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian Reformed Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology, the issue attention cycle. The Public Interest 28, p. 38–50.Google Scholar
  22. Everts, Ph.P. (1983). Public opinion, the churches and foreign policy, Studies of domestic factors in Dutch foreign policy. Leyden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Everts, Ph.P. (1985). Public opinion on nuclear weapons, defense and security: The case of the Netherlands. In G. Flynn H. Rattinger (Eds.), The public and Atlantic defense. Totowa, N.J.: Roman Allanheld.Google Scholar
  24. Eysenck, H.J. (1973). The inequality of man. London: Maurice Temple Smith.Google Scholar
  25. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  26. Flynn, G., Moreton, E., Treverton, G. (1985). Public images of Western security. Paris: The Atlantic Institute for International Affairs.Google Scholar
  27. Flynn, G., Rattinger, H. (Eds.) (1985). The public and Atlantic defense. Totowa, N.J.: Row-man AllanheldGoogle Scholar
  28. Frei D. (1986). Feindbilder und Abruestung. Muenchen, West Germany: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  29. Grosze Nipper, L.M.H., Rebel, H.J.C. (1987). Dimensions of pacifism and militarism. In H.J.C. Rebel L. Wecke (Eds.), Friends, foes, values, and fears. Amsterdam: Jan Mets, chapter 2.Google Scholar
  30. Izard C.C., Kagan, J., Zajonc, R.J. (Eds.) (1984). Emotions, cognition, and behavior. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jervis, R. (1975). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry. Scranton, Pa.: Chandler.Google Scholar
  33. Kelman, H.C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly 25, 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleinnijenhuis, J. (1987). Newspapers and the definition of the international situation. In H.J.C. Rebel L. Wecke (Eds.), Friends, foes, values, and fears. Amsterdam: Jan Mets, chapter 3.Google Scholar
  35. Knutson, J. (Ed.) (1973). Handbook of political psychology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Knutson, J. (1973). Personality in the study of politics. In J. Knutson (Ed.), Handbook of political psychology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Kohr, H.U., Raeder, H.G., New social movements and the perception of military threat. Forum Internationale 3 SOWI, Muenchen, West Germany.Google Scholar
  38. Kroner B. (1987). Latentes Feinddenken und ‘Kriegsmedien.“ In G. Sommer, et al. (Eds.), Feindbilder in Dienste der Au Fruestung. Marburg, West Germany: Eigenverlag PhilipsUniversitaet.Google Scholar
  39. Lane R. (1973). Patterns of political belief. In J. Knudson (Ed.), Handbook of political psychology.Google Scholar
  40. Lang, P.J. (1984). Cognition in emotion: Concept and action. In C.C. Izard, J. Kagan, R.J. Zajonc (Eds.), 192–229.Google Scholar
  41. Lauer, R.H., Handel, W.H. (1977). Social psychology, the theory and application of symbolic interactionism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  42. Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, U.K.: Penguin.Google Scholar
  43. Lersch, Ph. (1964). Aufbau der Person. Muenchen, West Germany: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
  44. Lorentz, K. (1968). Vom Weltbild Des Verhaltensforschers. Muenchen, West Germany: DTV.Google Scholar
  45. Luria, A.R. (1978). The working brain. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, U.K.: Penguin.Google Scholar
  46. May, R. (1977). The meaning of anxiety (rev.ed.), New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  47. McGuire, W.J. (1974). Psychological motives and communication gratification. In J.G. Blumler E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication. Beverly Hills/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Meloen, J. (1986). The dynamic socio-political and economic influences on authoritarianism, the construction of a time series model. In: Brouwer et al. (Eds.), Political psychology in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Mola Russa.Google Scholar
  49. Parsons, T. (1953). The social system. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  50. Penfield, W. (1952). Memory mechanisms. Archives of Neurology Psychiatry 67, 178–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  52. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: Theory and research. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Popper, K.R., Eccles, J.C. (1984). The self and its brain. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  54. Rebel, H.J.C. (1983a). Denken over Defensie, een semantische benadering,[Thinking about defence, a semantic approach.]. Acta Politica,XVIII-4, pp. 405–451.Google Scholar
  55. Rebel, H.J.C. (1983b). Fearing the army and the enemy, logical possibility, psychological probability and social reality. In H.U. Kohr H.G. Raeder. New social movements and the perception of military threat, Forum Internationale 3 SOWI, Muenchen, West Germany.Google Scholar
  56. Rebel, H.J.C. (1984). Defensie in Nederland (Defense in the Netherlands). The Hague: Ministry of Defence.Google Scholar
  57. Rebel, H.J.C. (1986). The role of enemy perception in thinking about peace and security. In Brouwer et al. (Eds.), Political Psychology in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Mola Russa.Google Scholar
  58. Rebel, H.J.C. (1987). Towards a system model of personal opinion. In H.J.C. Rebel L. Wecke (Eds. )Google Scholar
  59. Rebel, H.J.C. (1987). Personological Theory in Perspective. In H.J.C. Rebel L. Wecke (Eds.), chapter 6. 3.Google Scholar
  60. Rebel, H.J.C., Wecke, L. (Eds.). (1987). Friends, foes, values, and fears, inquiry into mechanisms of thought in peace and security. Amsterdam. Jan Mets.Google Scholar
  61. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  62. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80, White no. 609.Google Scholar
  63. Rowan, J. (1973). The social individual. London: Davis Poynter.Google Scholar
  64. Rowan, J. (1978). The structured crowd. London: Davis Poynter.Google Scholar
  65. Saris, W.E., Stronkhorst, H.L. (1984). Introduction to causal modelling in non-experimental research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  66. Schadé, J.P. (1984). Onze Hersenen. [Our Brain] Utrecht/Antwerpen: Spectrum.Google Scholar
  67. Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  68. Smith, M.B. (1973). Political attitudes. In: J. Knutson. (Ed.) Handbook of political psychology San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  69. Snellen, I.Th.M. (Ed.) (1985). Limits of government. Dutch Experiences. Amsterdam: Kobra.Google Scholar
  70. Sommer, G., Becker, J.M., Rehbein, K., Zimmerman R. (Eds.) (1987). Feindbilder im Dienste der Aufruestung. Marburg, West Germany: Marburg, West Germany: Eigenverlag Philipps-Universitaet.Google Scholar
  71. Stapel, J. (1987). Personological theory and research praxis. In H.J.C. Rebel L. Wecke (Eds.).Google Scholar
  72. Suedfeld, P. (Ed.) (1971). Attitude change, the competing views. Chicago/New York: Aldine/ Atherton.Google Scholar
  73. Suedfeld, P. (1971). Models of attitude change, theories that pass in the night. In P. Suedfeld (Ed.), 1–62.Google Scholar
  74. Tolhoek, H., Wecke L. (Eds.) (1985). The role of scientists in the peace movement. Amsterdam: Jan Mets.Google Scholar
  75. Vagts, A. (1959). A history of militarism (rev. ed.). London: Hollis Carter.Google Scholar
  76. Van der Eijk, C., Niemoeller, B. (1983). Electoral change in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: CT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Veuge, A.E.H. (1987). Opinions concerning nuclear weapons—A causal model. In H.J.C. Rebel L. Wecke (Eds.).Google Scholar
  78. Volkan, V. (1985). The need to have enemies and allies. Political Psychology 6, 2, 219–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Voorhoeve, J. (1979). Peace, profits and principles, a study of Dutch foreign policy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  80. Warr, P. (Ed.) (1970). Thought and personality. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, U.K.: Penguin.Google Scholar
  81. Wecke, L. (1985a). Misperception in international relations. In H. Tolhoek L. Wecke (Eds.), 49–69.Google Scholar
  82. Wecke, L. (1985b). Legitimacy as limiting factor in governmental decision making: The case of the cruise-missiles. In Snellen (Ed.).Google Scholar
  83. Wecke, L. (1987). Enemy images and public opinion. In: H.J.C. Rebel L. Wecke (Eds.), chapter 5.Google Scholar
  84. Weiss, R.F. (1971). A reinforcement learning model of attitude change. In P. Suedfeld (Ed.).Google Scholar
  85. Wessels, M.G. (1982). Cognitive psychology. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar
  86. White, R.K. (1987). Selektive Unaufmerksamkeit und Feindbild. In G. Sommer et al. (Eds.), 57–71.Google Scholar
  87. Wulff, E. (1987). Zur Entstehung und zur Wirkung von Feindbildern. In Sommer et al. (Eds.), 108–120.Google Scholar
  88. Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking, preferences need no inferences, American Psychologist 35, 123–131.Google Scholar
  89. Zeller, R.A., Carmines, E.G. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hendrik J. C. Rebel
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Economy and ManagementUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations