The influence of linear and cyclical temporal representations on risk perception of nuclear waste: An experimental study

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 459-476

  Moser, Corinne ^a   Stauffacher, Michael ^a   Krütli, Pius ^a   Scholz, Roland W ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

linear and cyclical time; nuclear waste; risk perception; temporal representation

Indexed keywords

CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS; EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES; GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION; GROUP DIFFERENCES; LINEAR AND CYCLICAL TIME; LINEAR PROPERTIES; REDUCING EFFECTS; RISK COMMUNICATION; SPECIFIC TIME; TEMPORAL REPRESENTATIONS;

RADIOACTIVE WASTES;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 84858199156     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2011.636836     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Atance, C.M., and D.K. O'Neill. 2001. Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5: 533-9.
2. Baddeley, A. 2001. Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove: Psychology Press.
3. Böhm, G., and H.-R. Pfister. 2005. Consequences, morality, and time in environmental risk evaluation. Journal of Risk Research 8: 461-79.
4. Brown, R.B., and R. Herring. 1998. The circles of time: An exploratory study in measuring temporal perceptions within organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology 13: 580-602.
5. Chaiken, S., and Y. Trope. 1999. Dual process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.
6. Davidson, D.J., and W.R. Freudenburg. 1996. Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 28: 302-39.
7. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. 2010. Perceptions of nuclear wastes across extreme time perspectives. Risk, Hazards &Crisis in Public Policy 1: 231-53.
8. Fishbein M., ed. New York, NY Wiley, 1967, Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement.
9. Freudenburg, W.R., and D.J. Davidson. 2007. Nuclear families and nuclear risks: The effects of gender, geography, and progeny on attitudes toward a nuclear waste facility. Rural Sociology 72: 215-43.
10. Grasmück, D., and R.W. Scholz. 2005. Risk perception of heavy metal soil contamination by high-exposed and low-exposed inhabitants: The role of knowledge and emotional concerns. Risk Analysis 25: 611-22.
11. Hammond, K.R., R.M. Hamm, J. Grassia, and T. Pearson. 1987. Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 17: 753-70.
12. Hogarth, R.M. 2001. Educating intuition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Huckfeldt, R., J. Levine, W. Morgan, and J. Sprague. 1999. Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science 43: 888-911.
14. Ji, L.-J., T. Guo, Z. Zhang, and D. Messervey. 2009. Looking into the past: Cultural differences in perception and representation of past information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 761-9.
15. Krütli, P. 2007. Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle: Wie eine einst betroffene Bevölkerung die Dinge sieht. Wichtige Ergebnisse einer Bevölkerungsbefragung in Nidwalden [Disposal of radioactive waste: The perspective of formerly affected people. Important results of a survey in Nidwalden]. In Entscheidungsprozesse Wellenberg: Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Schweiz [Decision processes Wellenberg. Disposal of radioactive waste in Switzerland], ed. R.W. Scholz, M. Stauffacher, S. Bösch, P. Krütli, and A. Wiek, 51-83.
16. Zürich: Rüegger. Krütli, P., T. Flüeler, M. Stauffacher, A. Wiek, and R.W. Scholz. 2010. Technical safety vs. public involvement? A case study on the unrealized project for the disposal of nuclear waste at Wellenberg (Switzerland) Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7: 229-44.
17. Krütli, P., M. Stauffacher, T. Flüeler, and R.W. Scholz. 2010. Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision making: Site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research 13: 861-75.
18. Liberman, N., M.D. Sagristano, and Y. Trope. 2002. The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38: 523-34.
19. Morgan, M.G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, and C.J. Atman. 2002. Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Moser, C., M. Stauffacher, P. Krütli and R.W. Scholz. 2012. The crucial role of nomothetic and idiographic conceptions of time: Interdisciplinary collaboration in nuclear waste management. Risk Analysis 32: 138-54.
21. Müller, U., and G.F. Giesbrecht. 2006. Psychological models of time: Arrows, cycles and spirals. Culture &Psychology 12: 221-9.
22. Nagra. 2002a. Project Opalinus Clay. Models, codes and data for safety assessment: Demonstration of disposal feasibility of spent fuel, vitrified high-level waste and long-lived intermediate-level waste. NTB 02-06. Wettingen: Nagra.
23. Nagra. 2002b. Project Opalinus Clay. Safety report: Demonstration of disposal feasibility of spent fuel, vitrified high-level waste and long-lived intermediate-level waste. NTB 02-05. Wettingen: Nagra.
24. Nagra,. Spuren der Zukunft: Lernen von der Natur für die Tiefenlagerung von radioaktiven Abfällen [Traces of the future: Learning from nature for the disposal of radioactive waste in deep geological repositories]. Wettingen: Nagra.,2007.
25. Nesselroade, J.R. 2001. Intraindividual variability in development within and between individuals. European Psychologist 6: 187-93.
26. Nicolaij, S., and L. Hendrickx. 2003. The influence of temporal distance of negative consequences on the evaluation of environmental risks. In Human decision making and environmental perception: Understanding and assisting human decision making in real-life settings, ed. L. Hendrickx, W. Jager, and L. Steg, 47-67. Groningen: University of Groningen.
27. Nussbaum, S., N. Liberman, and Y. Trope. 2006. Predicting the near and distant future. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 135: 152-61.
28. Overton, W.F. 1992. The arrow of time and the cycle of time: Concepts of change, cognition, and embodiment. Psychological Inquiry 5: 215-37.
29. Petty, R.E., D.T. Wegener, and L.R. Fabrigar. 1997. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology 48: 609-47.
30. Scholz, R.W. 1987. Cognitive strategies in stochastic thinking. Dordrecht: Reidel.
31. Scholz, R.W. 1988. Variants of expectancy and subjective probability in P300 research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11: 396-7.
32. Scholz, R.W., M. Stauffacher, S. Boesch, P. Krütli, and A. Wiek, eds. 2007. Entscheidungsprozesse Wellenberg. Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Schweiz [Decision processes Wellenberg. Disposal of radioactive waste in Switzerland]. Zürich: Rüegger.
33. Schunk, D., and C. Betsch. 2006. Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in decision modes. Journal of Economic Psychology 27: 386-401.
34. Shrader-Frechette, K. 2000. Duties to future generations, proxy consent, intra-and intergenerational equity: The case of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis 20: 771-8.
35. Siegrist, M., H. Gutscher, and T.C. Earle. 2005. Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research 8: 145-56.
36. Sjöberg, L. 2004. Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Analysis 24: 737-49.
37. Sjöberg, L., and B.-M. Drottz-Sjöberg. 2001. Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository. Journal of Risk Research 4: 75-101.
38. Sjöberg, L., and B.-M. Drottz-Sjöberg. 2009. Public risk perception of nuclear waste. International Journal of Risk Assessment &Management 11: 248-80.
39. Slovic, P., M.L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D.G. MacGregor. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24: 311-22.
40. Smerecnik, C.M.R., I. Mesters, L.T.E. Kessels, R.A.C. Ruiter, N.K. de Vries, and H. de Vries. 2010. Understanding the positive effects of graphical risk information on comprehension: Measuring attention directed to written, tabular, and graphical risk information. Risk Analysis 30: 1387-98.
41. Stauffacher, M., P. Krütli, and R.W. Scholz, eds. 2008. Gesellschaft und radioaktive Abfälle. Ergebnisse einer schweizweiten Befragung [Society and radiocative waste: Results of a survey in Switzerland]. Zürich: Rüegger.
42. Stauffacher, M., and C. Moser. 2010. A new 'epistemic community' in nuclear waste governance? Theoretical reflections and empirical observations of some fundamental challenges. Catalan Journal of Communication and Cultural Studies 2: 197-211.
43. Stern, P.C., and H.F. Fineberg, eds. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
44. Strandberg, U., and M. Andrén. 2009. Editorial: Nuclear waste management in a globalised world. Journal of Risk Research 7-8: 879-95.
45. Svenson, O., and G. Karlsson. 1989. Decision-making, time horizons, and risk in the very long-term perspective. Risk Analysis 9: 385-99.
46. Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2003. Temporal construal. Psychological Review 110: 403-21.
47. Venables, D. and N. Pidgeon. 2009. Gender and risk: Still seeking explanation. Understanding Risk Research Group Working Paper: School of Psychology, Cardiff University.
48. Visschers, V.H.M. 2007. Gut feeling versus common sense: The role of associative and cognitive processes in risk perception and risk communication. Maastricht: Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Education and Promotion.
49. Wilson, M. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review 9: 625-36.
50. Yamada, Y., and Y. Kato. 2006. Images of circular time and spiral repetition: The generative life cycle model. Culture &Psychology 12: 143-60.