Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1147-1165

  Tanaka, Yutaka ^a  

^a OSAKA GAKUIN UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 7444249073     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02000.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Binney, S. E., Mason, R., Martsolf, S. W., & Detweiler, J. (1996). Credibility, public trust, and the transport of radioactive waste through local communities. Environment and Behavior, 28, 283-301.
2. Brehmer, B. (1987). The psychology of risk. In W. T. Singleton & J. Hovden (Eds.), Risk and decisions (pp. 25-40). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
3. Englander, T., Farago, K., Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1986). A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social Behaviour, 1, 55-66.
4. Gerrard, M. B. (1994). Whose backyard, whose risk: Fear and fairness in toxic and nuclear waste siting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Goszczynska, M., Tyszka, T., & Slovic, P. (1991). Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 179-193.
6. Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1994). Exaggerated self-assessments and the preference for controllable risks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 410-427.
7. Kleinhesselink, R., & Rosa, E. A. (1991). Cognitive representation of risk perception: A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 11-28.
8. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551-578.
9. Mizushima, T., & Hayashi, O. (1995). The difference of risk perception between engineers of nuclear power and ordinary people. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 178-184.
10. National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. North, D. W. (1999). A perspective on nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 19, 751-758.
12. Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., & McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17, 43-54.
13. Portney, K. E. (1991). Siting hazardous waste treatment facilities. New York, NY: Auburn House.
14. Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 2093-2106.
15. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefit on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-203.
16. Singleton, W. T., & Hovden, J. (1987). Final discussion. In W. T. Singleton & J. Hovden (Eds.), Risk and decisions (pp. 219-224). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
17. Slovic, P. (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6, 403-415.
18. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
19. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.
20. Slovic, P. (1994). Perceptions of risk: Paradox and challenge. In B. Brehmer & N. E. Sahlin (Eds.), Future risks and risk management (pp. 63-78). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
21. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London, UK: Earthscan.
22. Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603-1607.
23. Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., Poumadere, M., & Mays, C. (2000). Nuclear power and the public: A comparative study of risk perception in France and the United States. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception (pp. 55-102). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
24. Tanaka, Y. (1995). Major factors of deciding public acceptance of a variety of technology. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 111-117.
25. Tanaka, Y. (1996). A social psychological study of public acceptance of nuclear power in Japan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gakushuin University, Tokyo, Japan.
26. Tanaka, Y. (1997). Perception of high-technology benefit. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 195-202.
27. Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., & Slovic, P. (1988). Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111-130.
28. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
29. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
30. Wiegman, O., & Gutteling, J. M. (1995). Risk appraisal and risk communication: Some empirical data from the Netherlands reviewed. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 227-249.