Public anxiety, trust, and the role of mediators in communicating risk of exposure to low dose radiation after the fukushima daiichi nuclear plant explosion

Journal of Science Communication

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2013, Pages

  Tateno, Saho ^a   Yokoyama, Hiromi M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880012572     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18242049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22323/2.12020203     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Report of meeting on how to construct the safe and relievable society with science policy (in Japanese), http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kagaku/anzen/houkoku/04042302.htm, accessed on December 26, 2012.
2. What is SPEEDI (in Japanese), http://www.bousai.ne.jp/vis/torikumi/030101.html, accessed on December 26, 2012.
3. Press Conference on March 19, 2011, by the Chief Cabinet Secretary on The levels of radiation in spinach and milk raised close to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant (in Japanese), http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/tyoukanpress/201103/19_p.html, accessed on January 9, 2013.
4. Symposium archive of Japanese Association of Science and Technology Journalists on Reporting Fukushima accident, held on November 6, 2011 (in Japanese) http://aichi-science.jp/events/single/46, accessed on January 22, 2013.
5. A. Suzuki and S. Kimura (April 2, 2011), Self-restraint of publishing prediction of spreading radioactive fallouts (in Japanese), Asahi Shimbun, http://www.asahi.com/special/10005/TKY201104020166.html, accessed on December 26, 2012.
6. K. Nakagawa et al.(April 2012), How books of nuclear accident were read (in Japanese), Chuou Kouron.
7. Fukushima Prefecture Homepage (in Japanese), http://wwwcms.pref.fukushima.jp/pcp_portal/PortalServlet;jsessionid=9216F185DBF36534440CF101294B3BBA?DISPLAY_ID=DIRECT&NEXT_DISPLAY_ID=U000004&CONTENTS_ID=26411, accecced on December 26, 2012.
8. Data of food monitoring about radioactive materials (in Japanese), http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/houdou/2r9852000002rtdl.html, accessed on December 26, 2012.
9. Survey on the trust of mass media after the Great East Japan Earthquake (in Japanese), http://www.nri.co.jp/news/2011/110329.html, accessed on December 26, 2012.
10. T.C. Earle and G. Cvetkovich (1990), What was the meaning of Chernobyl?, J. Environ. Psychol. 10: 169-176.
11. S. Weart (1988), Nuclear Fear, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.
12. P. Slovic (1996), Perception of Risk from Radiation, Radiat. Prot. Dosimetr 68 (3/4): 165-180.
13. E. Langer (1983), The psychology of control, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, U.S.A.
14. R. Prince-Embury and J.F. Rooney (1989), A comparison of residents who moved versus those who remained prior to restart of Three Mile Island, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19 (11): 959-975.
15. S. Prince-Embury and J.F. Rooney (1978), Perception of control and faith in experts among residents in the vicinity of Three Mile Island, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 17 (11): 953-968.
16. A. Baum, R. Gatchel, and M. Schaeffer (1983), Emotion, behavioral and physiological effects of chronic stress at Three Mile Island, J. Consul. Clin. Psychol. 51(4): 656-672.
17. J.R. Eiser, B. Hannover, L. Mann, M. Morin, J. Van der Pligt and P. Webley (1990), Nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl: a cross-national study, J. Environ. Psychol. 10: 101-110.
18. B. Hoijer (1987), Information gain, assessment of risks and behavior related to the nuclear power accident at Chernobyl and its consequences in Sweden, Sveriges Radio, Stockholm, Sweden, unpublished manuscript.
19. H.P. Peters (1992), The credibility of information sources in West Germany after the Chernobyl disaster, Publ. Understand. Sci. 1:325-343.
20. O. Renn (1990), Public responses to the Chernobyl accident, J. Environ. Psychol. 10: 151-167.
21. F.N. Hippel (2011), The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, B. Atom. Sci. 67(5): 27-36.
22. Chernobyl Forum (2006), Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, 2nd revised version, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf.
23. L. Lemyre et al. (2010), Psychosocial considerations for mass decontamination, Radiat. Prot. Dosimetr. 142(1): 17-23.
24. W. Leiss (1996), Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice, Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 545:85-94.
25. A. Boholm (2008), New perspectives on risk communication: Uncertainty in a complex society, J. Risk Research 11(1-2):1-3.
26. L. Trettin and C. Musham (2000), Is trust a realistic goal of environmental risk communication?, Environ. Behav. 32(3):410-426.
27. M.G. Mogan et al. (2001), Risk Communication: a mental models approach, Cambridge, U.K.
28. L. Sjoberg (2007), Emotions and risk perception, Risk Management 9: 223-237.
29. V.H.M. Visshchers and M. Siegrist (2008), Exploring the triangular relationship between trust, affect and risk perception: a review of literature, Risk Management 10:156-167.
30. K. Nakayachi (2011), Relationship between trust and anxiety toward managing risk, Shinrigaku Kenkyu (in Japanese) 82:467-472.
31. R. Holt (1983), Human stress at TMI and other reactor regions, paper presented at Three Mile Island Public Health Fund Forum, Penn State/Capitol Campus.
32. B. Dohrenwend, B. Dohrenwend, S. Kasl and G. Wowheit (1979), Report of the task force on behavioral effects of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
33. B. Wynne (1992), Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science, Pub. Understand. Sci. 1: 281-304.
34. R. Paine (1992), "Chernobyl" reaches Norway: the accident, science, and the threat to cultural knowledge, Pub. Understand. Sci. 1: 261-280.
35. K. Bultitude, P. Rodari, and E. Weitkamp (2012), Bridging the gap between science and policy: the importance of mutual respect, trust and the role of mediators, JCOM 11(03): C01.
36. A. Mazur and J. Lee (1993), Sounding the global alarm: environmental issues in the US national news, Soc. Stud. Sci. 23: 681-720.
37. J.L. Durfee (2006), "Social Change" and "Status Quo" Framing Effects on Risk Perception, Sci. Commun. 27: 259.
38. A.A. Wahlberg (2000), Risk perception and the media, J. Risk Research 3(1): 31-50.
39. S.M. Friedman, C.M. Gorney and B.P. Egolf (1992), Chernobyl coverage: how the media treated the nuclear industry, Pub. Understand. Sci. 1: 305-323.
40. S.M. Friedman (2011), Three Mile Island, Chernobyl. And Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of nuclear accidents and radiation, B. Atom. Sci. 67(5): 55-65.
41. E. Engdahl and R. Lidskog (2012), Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust, Pub. Understand. Sci., published before print on October 19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512460953.
42. C. Waddell (1990), The role of pathos in the decision-making process: a study in the rhetoric of science policy, Q. J. Speech 76: 381-400.
43. I. Walker and H.J. Smith (2002), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
44. M. Van Zomeren et al. (2008), Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives, Psychol. Bull. 134: 504-535.
45. C.W. Leach et al. (2006), Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action, Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 32: 1232-1245.
46. Fukushima Prefecture Homepage to support refugees (in Japanese), http://wwwcms.pref.fukushima.jp/pcp_portal/PortalServlet?DISPLAY_ID=DIRECT&NEXT_DISPLAY_ID=U000004&CONTENTS_ID=28571, accessed on December 26, 2012.
47. A. Takeshita. (July 6, 2012), Fukushima's challenge to construct a system of releasing anxiety regarding low dose radiation (in Japanese), Nikkei Shimbun. http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXDZO43414360V00C12A7EL1P01/, accessed on January 23, 2013.
48. Z. Gurabardhi et al. (2004), The Development of Risk Communication An Empirical Analysis of the Literature in the Field, Sci. Commun. 25: 323.
49. W. Kellens et al. (2013), Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research, Risk Analysis 33 (1):24-49.
50. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read and B. Combs (1978), How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sci. 9: 127-152.
51. P. Slovic (1987), Perception of Risk, Science 236(4799): 280-285.
52. G. Rowe et al. (2006), A comparison of responses to Internet and postal surveys in a public engagement context, Sci. Commu. 27(3): 352-375.
53. P. Stonemen et al. (2012), Exploring public discourses about emerging technologies through statistical clustering of open-ended survey questions, Pub. Understand. Sci., published before print on http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512441569.
54. B. Johnstone. (2008), Discourse Analysis, Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
55. D. Evensen and C.E. Clarke (2012), Efficacy information in Media Coverage of Infectious Disease Risks, Sci Comm. 34(3): 392-418.
56. B-M. Drottz-Sjoberg L. and Sjoberg (1990), Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident, J. Environ. Psychol. 10: 135-149.
57. M. Tanaka et al. (2012), Minority in disaster and minority of receiving risk information (in Japanese), Chikuma Shobo, Tokyo, Japan.
58. A. Takano et al. (2012), 3.11 information science (in Japanese), Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, Japan.