Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: Support for the affect heuristic

Risk Analysis

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1021-1029

  Siegrist, Michael ^a,b   Keller, Carmen ^a   Cousin, Marie Eve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Affect heuristic; Electromagnetic field hazards; IAT; Nuclear power; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; HAZARDS; HEURISTIC METHODS; NUCLEAR ENERGY; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

AFFECT HEURISTIC; BASE STATIONS; IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST (IAT); TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS;

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS;

ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; HEURISTICS; MOBILE COMMUNICATION; NUCLEAR POWER; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AFFECT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD; FEMALE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MOBILE PHONE; NUCLEAR ENERGY; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 33748433814     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00797.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
2. Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.
3. Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitude measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12, 163-170.
4. Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2002). Predictive validity of an implicit association test for assessing anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1441-1455.
5. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.
6. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.
7. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
8. Frewer, L., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., & Berdal, K. G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(7), 1181-1193.
9. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25.
10. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
11. Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2001). Health of the implicit association test at age 3. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 85-93.
12. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
13. Krimsky, S., & Golding, D. (1992). Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.
14. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.
15. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. (2001). The implicit association test as a measure of implicit consumer attitudes. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 32, 61-79.
16. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223.
17. Montijn-Dorgelo, F. N. H., & Midden, C. J. H. (2004). Implicit Measures of Risk Perceptions of Hydrogen Systems. Paper presented at the 13th SRA Europe Annual Meeting (15-17 November, 2004), Paris, France.
18. Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition, 19, 625-666.
19. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the implicit association test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166-180.
20. Phelps, E. A., O'Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., et al. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 729-738.
21. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.
22. Siegrist, M., Earle, T. C., Gutscher, H., & Keller, C. (2005). Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis, 25, 1253-1264.
23. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25, 209-220.
24. Sjöberg, L. (1996). A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68, 219-225.
25. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
26. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 397-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311-322.
28. Spence, A., & Townsend, E. (2006). Implicit attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) foods: A comparison of context-free and context-dependent evaluations. Appetite, 46, 67-74.
29. Teachman, B. A., & Woody, S. R. (2003). Automatic processing in spider phobia: Implicit fear associations over the course of treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 100-109.