Difference in the formation of attitude toward nuclear power

Political Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 191-203

  Katsuya, Tsunoda ^a  

^a NONE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Attitude; Covariance structure analysis; Dual process theory; Elaboration likelihood model; Nuclear power

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036489085     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0162-895X.00277     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limit of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2. Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS structure equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc.
3. Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
4. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
5. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson, & C.P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Early, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
7. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
8. Chebat, C., Filiatrault, P., & Perrien, J. (1990). Limits of credibility: The case of political persuasion. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 157-167.
9. Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C.K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-429.
10. Gilbert, J., Heesacker, M., & Gannon, J. (1991). Changing the sexual aggression-supportive attitudes of men: A psychoeducational intervention. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 197-203.
11. Harris, B.E., Heesacker, M., & Millan, M.C. (1996). Changing men's male gender-role attitudes by applying the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change. Sex Roles, 35, 563-580.
12. Johnson, B.B., & Slovic, P. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effect on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15, 485-494.
13. Parker, R. (1990). The role of constituent trust in congressional elections, Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 175-196.
14. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
15. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
16. Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (vol. 1, pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
17. Shimooka, H. (1993). Process of public attitudes toward nuclear power generation. Journal of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, 35, 115-123.
18. Sjöberg, D.B., & Sjöberg, L. (1990). Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 135-149.
19. Tsunoda, K. (1999). A study of determinants of risk perception concerning nuclear power generation. Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis, 11, 54-60.
20. Whittler, T. (1990). Viewers' processing of actor's race and message claims in advertising stimuli. Psychology and Marketing, 6, 287-309.
21. Yamagishi, T. (1998). The structure of trust: The evolutionary games of mind and society. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.