Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK

Energy Policy

Volumn 41, Issue , 2012, Pages 451-465

  Jones, Christopher R ^a   Eiser, J Richard ^a   Gamble, Tim R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Framing; Nuclear power

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDES; CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION; DIRECT IMPACT; ENERGY SECURITY; ENERGY SOURCE; FRAMING; NUCLEAR WASTE; PUBLIC CONSULTATION; PUBLIC OPINIONS; RENEWABLES;

ENERGY CONVERSION; ENERGY POLICY; NUCLEAR ENERGY; RADIOACTIVE WASTES;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY POLICY; GOVERNMENT; NUCLEAR POWER; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PUBLIC ATTITUDE;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84855946174     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.006     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Bahgat G. Europe's energy security: challenges and opportunities. International Affairs 2006, 82(5):961-975.
2. BERR The Future of Nuclear Power: Analysis of Consultation Responses 2008, Department of Business and Regulatory Reform (BERR), London, UK, Available from: 〈http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43206.pdf〉 (last accessed: 16th February 2011).
3. Beierle T.C., Cayford J. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions 2002, RFF Press, Washington, DC, USA.
4. Bickerstaff K., Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon N.F., Poortinga W., Simmons P. Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science 2008, 17(2):145-169.
5. Brewer P.R. Value words and lizard brains: do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values?. Political Psychology 2001, 22(1):45-64.
6. Brewer P.R., Gross K. Values, framing, and citizens' thoughts about policy issues: effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology 2005, 26(6):929-948.
7. Climate Change Act The Climate Change Act 2008, The Stationery Office (TSO), London, UK, (Chapter 27).
8. Chong D., Druckman J.N. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 2007, 10(1):103-126.
9. Corner A., Venables D., Spence A., Poortinga W., Demski C., Pidgeon N.F. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 2011, 39(9):4823-4833.
10. DECC The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan: National Strategy for Climate and Energy 2009, Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), The Stationery Office, London, UK.
11. DECC The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009) 2009, Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), The Stationery Office, London, UK.
12. DECC UK Energy in Brief 2010. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) 2010, The Stationery Office, London, UK.
13. Druckman J.N. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Policy 2001, 23(3):225-256.
14. Druckman J.N. On the limits of framing effects: who can frame?. The Journal of Politics 2001, 63(4):1041-1066.
15. Druckman J.N., Nelson K.R. Framing and deliberation: how citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science 2003, 47(4):729-745.
16. DTI, 2003. Our Energy Future-Creating a Low Carbon Economy. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), London, UK. Available from: (last accessed: 16th February 2011). http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf.
17. DTI, 2006a. Our Energy Challenge: Securing Clean, Affordable Energy for the Long Term. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), London. UK. Available from: (last accessed: 16th February 2011). http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/consultation/index.html.
18. DTI, 2006b. The Energy Challenge: Energy Review Report. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), London, UK. Available from: (last accessed: 16th February 2011). http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/review/page31995.html.
19. DTI Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy 2007, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), London, UK, Available from:〈http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html〉 (last accessed: 16th February 2011).
20. DTI The Future of Nuclear Power: The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy 2007, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), London, UK, Available from:〈http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39197.pdf〉 (last accessed: 16th February 2011).
21. Epley N., Gilovich T. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science 2006, 17(4):311-318.
22. Fiske S.T., Taylor S.E. Social Cognition 1991, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, United States. second edition.
23. Friends of the Earth, 2006. Nuclear Power, Climate Change and the Energy Review (Briefing paper: June 2006). Available from: (last accessed: 16th February 2011). http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/nuclear_power.pdf.
24. Fthenakis V.M., Kim H.C. Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: a life-cycle study. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2549-2557.
25. Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. Heuristic and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
26. Greenpeace, 2006. The Greenpeace Response to the Department of Trade and Industry's Energy Review Consultation Document 'Our Energy Challenge' (January 2006) (Published: April 2006). Greenpeace UK, London, UK. Available from: (last accessed: 24th May 2011). http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7996.pdf.
27. Greenpeace Nuclear Consultation: Fair and Full? (Published: May 2007) 2007, Greenpeace UK, London, UK, Available from: 〈http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/nuclear/nuclear_consultation_090507.pdf〉 (last accessed: 24th May 2011).
28. Haider-Markel D.P., Joslyn M.R. Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: the conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics 2001, 63:520-543.
29. IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups II and III to the Fourth Assessment. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland.
30. Iyengar S., McGrady J. Mass Media and Political Persuasion. Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives 2005, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, United States. second edition. T.C. Brock, M.C. Green (Eds.).
31. Jacoby W.G. Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science 2000, 44(4):750-767.
32. Jones C.R., Eiser J.R. Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study. Energy Policy 2009, 37(11):4604-4614.
33. Krohn S., Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renewable Energy 1999, 16(1):954-960.
34. Levin I., Schneider S., Gaeth G. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1998, 76(2):149-188.
35. Nelson T.E., Oxley Z.M., Clawson R.A. Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior 1997, 19(3):221-246.
36. NIRS/WISE International, 2005. Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change. Nuclear Monitor (621-622). Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and World Information Service on Energy (WISE), Washington, DC, United States/Amsterdam, Netherlands. Available from: (last accessed: 16th February 2011). http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf.
37. Nuclear Consultation Working Group (NCWG), 2008. Nuclear Consultation: Public Trust in Government. Available from: (last accessed: 24th May 2011). http://www.nuclearconsult.com/docs/NUCLEAR_REPORT_COMPLETE_HIGH.pdf.
38. Oltra C., Sala R., Sola R., Di Masso M., Rowe G. Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2010, 4(4):698-706.
39. Pidgeon N.F., Lorenzoni I., Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power-no thanks! a quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change 2008, 18(1):69-85.
40. Sovacool B.K. Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: a critical survey. Energy Policy 2008, 36:2940-2953.
41. Spence A., Poortinga W., Butler C., Pidgeon N.F. UK flooding experiences helping to turn the tide on climate change?. Nature Climate Change 2011, 1:46-49.
42. Spence, A., Venables, D., Pidgeon, N.F., Poortinga, W., Demski, C., 2010. Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January-March 2010. Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-1. Technical Report, Cardiff. Available from: (last accessed: 23rd February 2011). http://www.cf.ac.uk/psych/home2/docs/UnderstandingRiskFinalReport.pdf.
43. Stern J. UK gas security: time to get serious. Energy Policy 2004, 32(17):1967-1979.
44. Stern N.H. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
45. Stern P., Fineberg H.V. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in Democratic Society 1996, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, United States.
46. Sustainable Development Commission, 2006a. The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy. Paper 2: Reducing CO2 Emissions-Nuclear and the Alternatives. Available from: (last accessed: 24th May 2011). http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/SDC-NuclearPosition-2006.pdf.
47. Sustainable Development Commission, 2006b. The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy. Paper 4: The Economics of Nuclear Power. Available from: (last accessed: 24th May 2011). http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/Nuclear-paper4-Economics.pdf.
48. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185(4157):1124-1131.
49. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211(4481):453-458.
50. van der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 2007, 35(5):2705-2714.
51. Verbruggen A. Renewable and nuclear power: a common future?. Energy Policy 2008, 36(11):4036-4047.
52. Zuwerink J.R., Devine P.G. Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: it's not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, 70(5):931-944.