The Effect of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Risk Perception, Antinuclear Behavioral Intentions, Attitude, Trust, Environmental Beliefs, and Values

Environment and Behavior

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 782-798

  Prati, Gabriele ^a   Zani, Bruna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Fukushima accident; nuclear attitudes; nuclear power; proenvironmental beliefs; risk perception; trust; values

Indexed keywords

ALTRUISM; CULTURAL HISTORY; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; NUCLEAR POWER; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK PERCEPTION;

ITALY;

EID: 84879779228     PISSN: 00139165     EISSN: 1552390X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013916512444286     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Amburgey J. W.,Thoman D. B.Dimensionality of the new ecological paradigm: Issues of factor structure and measurement.Environment and Behavior. 2011;:.
2. Benjamini Y.,Hochberg Y.Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B. 1995;57:289-300.
3. Cohen J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988:.
4. Dietz T.,Fitzgerald A.,Shwom R.Environmental values.Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2005;30:335-372.
5. Dunlap R. E. R.,Van Liere K. D.The "new environmental paradigm:" A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results.Journal of Environmental Education. 1978;9:10-19.
6. Dunlap R. E.,Van Liere K. D.,Mertig A. D.,Jones R. E.New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale.Journal of Social Issues. 2000;56:425-442.
7. Faul F.,Erdfelder E.,Lang A. G.,Buchner A.G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39:175-191.
8. Fischhoff B.,Slovic P.,Lichtenstein S.,Read S.,Combs B.How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits.Policy Sciences. 1978;9:127-152.
9. Graham J. W.Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world.Annual Review of Psychology. 2009;60:549-576.
10. Hawcroft L. J.,Milfont T. L.The use (and abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis.Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2010;30:143-158.
11. Kasperson R. E.,Renn O.,Slovic P.,Brown H. S.,Emel J.,Goble R.,Ratick S.The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework.Risk Analysis. 1988;8:177-187.
12. 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.
13. Midden C. J. H.,Verplanken B.The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl.Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1990;10:111-119.
14. 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.
15. Peters H. P.,Albrecht G.,Hennen L.,Stegelmann H. U."Chernobyl" and the nuclear power issue in West German public opinion.Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1990;10:121-134.
16. Prati G.,Zani B.,Pietrantoni L.Parlare di OGM in Italia. Villano P.Zani B., ed. Bologna, Italy: Clueb; 2011:79-99.
17. Rankin W. L.,Melber B. D.,Overcast T. D.,Nealey S. M.Nuclear power and the public: An update of collected survey research on nuclear power. Seattle, WA: Batelle Human Affairs Research Centers; 1981:.
18. Renn O. S. M.Public responses to the Chernobyl accident.Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1990;10:151-167.
19. Rosa E. A.The future acceptability of nuclear power in the United States. Paris, France: Institute Francais des Relations Internationales; 2004:.
20. Rosa E. A.,Dunlap R. E.The polls-poll trends: Nuclear energy: Three decades of public opinion.Public Opinion Quarterly. 1994;58:295-325.
21. Savadori L. R. E.,Savio S.,Nicotra E.,Rumiati R.,Finucane M.,Slovic P.Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology.Risk Analysis. 2004;24:1289-1299.
22. Schwartz S. H.Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1992;25:1-65.
23. Sjöberg B. D.,Sjöberg L.Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident.Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1990;10:135-149.
24. Slovic P.Perception of risk.Science. 1987;236:280-285.
25. Stern P. C.,Dietz T.,Abel T.,Guagnano G. A.,Kalof L. A.Social psychological theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.Human Ecology Review. 1999;6:81-97.
26. Stern P. C.,Dietz T.,Guagnano G. A.A brief inventory of values.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1998;58:884-1001.
27. Stern P. C.,Dietz T.,Kalof L.Value orientations, gender and environmental concern.Environment and Behavior. 1993;25:322-348.
28. TNS Opinion & Social (2011). Europeans and Nuclear Safety Report [Special Eurobarometer]. European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/safety_en.htm.
29. Tsunoda K.Public response to the Tokai nuclear accident.Risk Analysis. 2001;21:1039-1046.
30. Van der Pligt J.,Midden C. J.Chernobyl: Four years later: Attitudes, risk management and communication.Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1990;10:91-99.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Williams V. S. L.,Jones L. V.,Tukey J. W.Controlling error in multiple comparisons, with examples from state-to-state differences in educational achievement.Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 1999;24:42-69.
34. Wittneben B. B. F.The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European energy policy.Environmental Science & Policy. 2012;15:1-3.