Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41747223›Full record

SynthesisPerspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science2026

People's Responses to Nuclear Weapons: Mapping Post-Cold War Research.

Astrid Kause, Helen Fischer, Zia Mian, Susan T Fiske

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Astrid KauseSchool of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg.ORCID 0000-0002-0121-2406
Helen FischerLeibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5037-0390
Zia MianProgram on Science and Global Security, Princeton University.ORCID 0000-0002-0802-2306
Susan T FiskeDepartment of Psychology and School of Public and International Affairs (emerita), Princeton University.ORCID 0000-0002-1693-3425

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nuclear weapon threats are increasing and may be comparable to levels not seen since the worst periods of the Cold War. There could be value in psychologists documenting and explaining people's responses to nuclear weapons. More than 3 decades have passed since the last major reviews of people's responses to nuclear weapons. We thus aimed to understand how psychologists and researchers from related fields have empirically studied responses to nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War. We systematically mapped articles reporting on people's responses. A search in Web of Science and Scopus identified 18,505 hits. Screening resulted in 256 suitable articles. We assessed (a) publication patterns, including how many articles focused on responses to nuclear weapons, when those articles were published, and in which field; (b) the research community, namely author collaborations and focal journals; (c) research themes, as indicated by cocitation networks and theoretical backgrounds; and (d) the validity, generalizability, and replicability of empirical findings, as indicated by adequate samples and validated measures. We found renewed interest in the field but not yet a coherent research community and only some evidence for its evolution from occasional, scattered, one-off studies toward a coherent and coordinated scholarly field.

Indexed as

Nuclear WeaponsHumansactionsbeliefsexistential riskfeelingsknowledgenuclear weaponssystematic map

Identifiers

PMID41747223
PMCPMC13096629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.