Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants

Energy Policy

Volumn 46, Issue , 2012, Pages 292-300

  Visschers, Vivianne H M ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Acceptance of policy decisions; Nuclear power plants; Perceived fairness

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC BENEFITS; MAIL SURVEYS; PERCEIVED BENEFITS; PERCEIVED FAIRNESS; POLICY DECISIONS; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; SWITZERLAND;

ENERGY POLICY; RISK PERCEPTION;

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS;

DECISION MAKING; ENERGY POLICY; NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK PERCEPTION;

SWITZERLAND;

EID: 84861221545     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.062     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Aiken L.S., West S.G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions 1991, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
2. B.B.C. News, 2011. Italy nuclear: Berlusconi accepts referendum blow. (accessed October 4, 2011). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13741105.
3. Besley J.C. Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication 2010, 32:256-280.
4. Besley J.C. Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making?. Risk Analysis 2012, 32:25-38.
5. Bisconti Research Inc., March 2010. Public Support for Nuclear Energy at Record High. (accessed January 11, 2011). http://www.nei.org/filefolder/2010_March_MEMO_Public_Opinion2.pdf.
6. Cohen-Charash Y., Spector P.E. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2001, 86:278-321.
7. Cohen J., Cohen P., West S.G., Aiken L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 3rd edn.
8. Connor M., Siegrist M. Factors influencing people's acceptance of gene technology: the role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication 2010, 32:514-538.
9. de Boer C., Catsburg I. The impact of nuclear accidents on attitudes toward nuclear energy. The Public Opinion Quarterly 1988, 52:254-261.
10. de Cremer D., Tyler T.R. The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology 2007, 92:639-649.
11. de Groot J.I.M., Steg L. Morality and nuclear energy: perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis 2010, 30:1363-1373.
12. Dohle S., Keller C., Siegrist M. Fear and anger: antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication. Journal of Risk Research 2012, 15:435-446.
13. Earle T.C. Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis 2010, 30:541-574.
14. Earle T.C., Siegrist M. Morality information, performance information, and the distrinction between trust and confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2006, 36:383-416.
15. Earle T.C., Siegrist M. On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis 2008, 28:1395-1414.
16. Eiser J.R., Spears R., Webley P. Nuclear attitudes before and after Chernobyl: change and judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1989, 19:689-700.
17. European Commission Attitudes towards Radioactive Waste 2008, TNS Opinion & Social, Brussels.
18. Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S.M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2000, 13:1-17.
19. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S., Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 1978, 9:127-152.
20. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research 1998, 1:221-235.
21. Greenberg M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 2009, 37:3242-3249.
22. Greenberg M.R. NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: US national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Analysis 2009, 29:1242-1254.
23. Gross C. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2727-2736.
24. Keller C., Visschers V., Siegrist M. Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis 2012, 32:464-477.
25. Krütli P., Flüeler T., Stauffacher M., Wiek A., Scholz R.W. 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 2010, 7:229-244.
26. Leung K., Tong K.K., Lind E.A. Realpolitik versus fair process: moderating effects of group identification on acceptance of political decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007, 92:476-488.
27. Lindell M.K., Perry R.W. Effects of the Chernobyl accident on public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. Risk Analysis 1990, 10:393-399.
28. Loewenstein G.F., Weber E.U., Hsee C.K., Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin 2001, 127:267-286.
29. Malone E.L., Dooley J.J., Bradbury J.A. Moving from misinformation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2010, 4:419-425.
30. McComas K.A., Besley J.C., Yang Z. Risky business: perceived behavior of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis 2008, 28:1539-1552.
31. Midden C.J.H., Verplanken B. The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1990, 10:111-119.
32. Napier J., Tyler T. Does moral conviction really override concerns about procedural justice? A reexamination of the value protection model. Social Justice Research 2008, 21:509-528.
33. Nuclear Energy Institute Polls Show Continued Support for Nuclear Energy 2011, Nuclear Energy Insight, Summer, p. 3.
34. Peters E., Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1996, 26:1427-1453.
35. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?. Risk Analysis 2005, 25:199-209.
36. Rosa E.A., Dunlap R.E. Nuclear power: three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58:295-324.
37. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 2005, 30:251-290.
38. Scheufele D.A., Lewenstein B.V. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2005, 7:659-667.
39. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999, 29:2093-2106.
40. Siegrist, M., Connor, M., Keller, C. Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction and the acceptance of GM field experiments. Risk Analysis. in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01739.x.
41. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:713-720.
42. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G., Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:353-362.
43. Skitka L.J. Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2002, 28:588-597.
44. Skitka L.J., Mullen E. Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: a test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2002, 28:1419-1429.
45. Skitka L.J., Winquist J., Hutchinson S. Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research 2003, 16:309-341.
46. Slovic P., Layman M., Kraus N., Flynn J., Chalmers J., Gesell G. Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis 1991, 11:683-696.
47. Spence A., Poortinga W., Pidgeon N., Lorenzoni I. Public perceptions of energy choices: the influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment. Energy & Environment 2010, 21:385-407.
48. Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk: what is our society willing to pay for safety?. Science 1969, 165:1232-1238.
49. Swiss Federal Office for Energy, 2012. New nuclear power plants. (accessed March 1, 2012). http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00511/03820/index.html?lang=en.
50. Swiss Federal Office of Energy, 2009. Nuclear Energy. (accessed July 22, 2010). http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00511/index.html?lang=en.
51. Swiss Statistics, 2009. Bevölkerungsstand und struktur [Population size and composition]. (accessed May 31, 2011). http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/02/blank/data/01.html.
52. Swiss Statistics, 2010. Bildungsstand der Wohnbevölkerung nach Alter und Geschlecht [Education level of the resident population according to age and gender] (accessed May 31, 2011). http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/15/02/key/ind5.indicator.51131.511.html?open=9#9.
53. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2004, 34:1147-1165.
54. Tyler T.R. Social justice: outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology 2000, 35:117-125.
55. 2 Storage Projects that are Currently being Prepared] Letter to Parliament 2010, Ministry of Economical Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, The Hague, The Netherlands.
56. Verplanken B. Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environment and Behavior 1989, 21:371-392.
57. Visschers V.H.M., Keller C., Siegrist M. Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3621-3629.
58. Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., 2012. How an accident in a nuclear power plant influences acceptance: results of a longitudinal study before and after Fukushima. Manuscript Under Review.
59. Wallquist, L., Visschers, V.H.M., Dohle, S., Siegrist, M. The role of convictions and trust for public protest potential in the case of CCS. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, in press.
60. Wallquist L., Visschers V.H.M., Siegrist M. Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environmental Science & Technology 2010, 44:6557-6562.
61. Whitfield S.C., Rosa E.A., Dan A., Dietz T. The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis 2009, 29:425-437.