Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster

Energy Policy

Volumn 67, Issue , 2014, Pages 727-736

  Yeo, Sara K ^a   Cacciatore, Michael A ^b   Brossard, Dominique ^a   Scheufele, Dietram A ^a   Runge, Kristin ^a   Su, Leona Y ^a   Kim, Jiyoun ^a   Xenos, Michael ^a   Corley, Elizabeth A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Fukushima; Ideology; Perceptual filters

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893826670     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.061     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abramowitz A.I., Saunders K.L. Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: social identity vs. ideology. Political Res. Q. 2006, 59(2):175-187. 10.1177/106591290605900201.
2. American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima. (2012). Fukushima Daiichi: ANS Committee Report: American Nuclear Society.
3. Ansolabehere S. The Future of Nuclear Power 2010, MIT Press.
4. Binder A.R., Scheufele D.A., Brossard D., Gunther A.C. Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of a biological research facility. Risk Anal. 2011, 31(2):324-334. 10.1111/J.1539-6924.2010.01516.X.
5. Brossard D., Nisbet M.C. Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. [Article]. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 2007, 19(1):24-52. 10.1093/ijpor/edl003.
6. Brossard D., Scheufele D.A., Kim E., Lewenstein B.V. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding Sci. 2009, 18(5):546-558. 10.1177/0963662507087304.
7. Cacciatore M.A., Binder A.R., Scheufele D.A., Shaw B.R. Public attitudes toward biofuels: effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use. Polit. Life Sci. 2012, 31(1-2):36-51. 10.2990/31_1-2_36.
8. Chaiken S., Liberman A., Eagly A.H. Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context Unintended Thought 1989, 212-252. Guilford Press, New York, NY.
9. Cohen J., Cohen P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 1983, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. second ed.
10. Cohen J.P., Cohen P., West S.G., Aiken L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. third ed.
11. Engelberg E., Sjöberg L. Perceived reality of visually mediated hazards and beliefs about risk. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2005, 19(7):899-912.
12. Fife-Schaw C., Rowe G. Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations. J. Risk Res. 2000, 3(2):167-179.
13. Flynn J., Peters E., Mertz C.K., Slovic P. Risk, media, and stigma at Rocky Flats. Risk Anal. 1998, 18:715-727.
14. Frewer L.J., Miles S., Marsh R. The media and genetically modified foods: evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Anal. 2002, 22(4):701-711.
15. Friedman S., Dunwoody S., Rogers C. Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News 1986, Free Press, New York.
16. Ho S.S., Brossard D., Scheufele D.A. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. [Article]. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 2008, 20(2):171-192. 10.1093/ijpor/edn017.
17. Ho S.S., Scheufele D.A., Corley E.A. Making sense of policy choices: understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. [Editorial Material]. J. Nanopart. Res. 2010, 12(8):2703-2715. 10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8.
18. Inglehart R., Klingemann H.D. Party Identification, Ideological Preference and the Left-right Dimension Among Western Mass Publics 1976, 243-273. Wiley, New York, NY. I. Budge, I. Crewe, D. Farlie (Eds.).
19. Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2011). Public Beliefs, Concerns and Preferences Regarding the Management of Used Nuclear Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste: University of Oklahoma.
20. Jones J.M. Support for Nuclear Energy Inches up to New High: Majority Believes Nuclear Power Plants are Safe 2009, Gallup, Princeton, NJ.
21. Kasperson R.E. The social amplification of risk and low-level radiation. Bull. Atomic Sci. 2012, 68(3):59-66.
22. Katchanovski, I. (2012). Fukushima vs. Chernobyl: Coverage of the Nuclear Disasters by American and Canadian Media. Paper Presented at the American Political Sciences Association, New Orleans, LA.
23. Lazarsfeld P.M., Berelson B.R., Gaudet H. The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign 1948, Duell, Sloan & Pearce, New York, NY.
24. Lazic D. News analysis of the Fukushima accident: lack of information disclosure, radiation fears and accountability issues. J. Contemp. East. Asia 2013, 12(2):19-34.
25. Lee C.J., Scheufele D.A. The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: a media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism Mass Commun. Q. 2006, 83(4):819-834.
26. Lee C.J., Scheufele D.A., Lewenstein B.V. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies-examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci. Commun. 2005, 27(2):240-267.
27. Lemyre L., Lee J.E.C., Mercier P., Bouchard L., Krewski D. The structure of Canadians' health risk perceptions: environmental, therapeutic and social health risks. Health, Risk Soc. 2006, 8(2):185-195.
28. National Science Board. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators. (NSB 12-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/start.htm.
29. Nelkin D. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology 1995, W. H. Freeman, New York.
30. Nisbet M.C. The competition for worldviews: values, information, and public support for stem cell research. [Article]. Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res. 2005, 17(1):90-112. 10.1093/ijpor/edh058.
31. Parkhill K.A., Pidgeon N.F., Henwood K.L., Simmons P., Venables D. From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents' perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Trans. Inst. Br. Geographer. 2010, 35(1):39-58. 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00364.x.
32. Pew Research Center. (2011a). Opposition to Nuclear Power Rises Amid Japanese Crisis: Pew Research Center.
33. Pew Research Center. (2011b). Partisan Divide Over Alternative Energy Widens: Pew Research Center.
34. Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C., Jones, D. K., Turner, B. A., Gibson, R. (1992). Risk Perception Risk Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group. London: Royal Society.
35. Poortinga W., Pidgeon N.F. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 2003, 23(5):961-972.
36. Popkin S.L. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns 1991, University of Chicago Press.
37. Prati G., Zani B. The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environ. Behav. 2012, 10.1177/0013916512444286.
38. Reilly J. Just another food scare?" Public understanding and the BSE crisis. Message Received 1998, 128-145. Longman, Essex. G. Philo (Ed.).
39. Rosa E.A., Clark D.L. Historical routes to technological gridlock: nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Res. Soc. Prob. Public Policy 1999, 7:21-57.
40. Rosa E.A., Freudenburg W.R. The historical development of public reactions to nuclear power: implications for nuclear waste policy. Nuclear Waste: Citizens' View of Repository Siting 1993, Duke University Press, Durham, NC. R.E. Dunlap, M.E. Kraft, E.A. Rosa (Eds.).
41. Sanger, D. E., Wald, M. (2011). Radioactive releases in Japan could last months, experts say, The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/nuclear_japan/114D_3_2011_Radioactive_Release_at_Fukushima_Could_Last_Months_U.S._Experts_State_March_13_2011_NYTimes_Entire_Article.pdf.
42. Scheufele D.A. Messages and Heuristics: How Audiences form Attitudes About Emerging Technologies 2006, The Wellcome Trust, London.
43. Siegrist M., Cousin M.E., Frei M. Biased confidence in risk assessment studies. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2008, 14(6):1226-1234. 10.1080/10807030802494527.
44. Siegrist M., Visschers V.H.M. Acceptance of nuclear power: the Fukushima effect. Energy Policy 2012, 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.051.
45. Sjöberg L. Attitudes and risk perceptions of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Anal. 2003, 23(4):739-749. 10.1111/1539-6924.00352.
46. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236(4799):280-285.
47. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception?. Risk Anal. 1982, 2(2):83-93. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x.
48. Slovic P., Flynn J.H., Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 1991, 254(5038):1603-1607.
49. Slovic P., Layman M., Flynn J.H. Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustainable Dev. 1991, 33(3):6-30. 10.1080/00139157.1991.9931375.
50. Smith J.T. Are passive smoking, air pollution and obesity a greater mortality risk than major radiation incidents?. BMC Publ. Health 2007, 7(1):49.
51. Taber C.S., Cann D., Kucsova S. The motivated processing of political arguments. Polit. Behav. 2009, 31:137-155.
52. Taber C.S., Lodge M. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. [Article]. Am. J. Political Sci. 2006, 50(3):755-769.
53. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185(4157):1124-1131. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
54. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2011). Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications.
55. van der Pligt J. Nuclear Energy and the Public 1992, Blackwell Publishing.
56. Vaughan E. Chronic exposure to an environmental hazard: risk perceptions and self-protective behavior. Health Psychol. 1993, 12(1):74.
57. Visschers V.H.M., Siegrist M. How a Nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Anal. 2012, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x.
58. Wald, M. L. (2010, February 16). U.S. Supports New Nuclear Reactors in Georgia, The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html.
59. Whitfield S.C., Rosa E.A., Dan A., Dietz T. The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal. 2009, 29(3):425-437.
60. Wynne B. Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding Sci. 1992, 1(3):281-304.