The impact of accident attention, ideology, and environmentalism on american attitudes toward nuclear energy

Risk Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 949-964

  Besley, John C ^a   Oh, Sang Hwa ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Fairness; News; Nuclear energy; Public opinion; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENTS; NUCLEAR ENERGY; OIL SPILLS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILLS; EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES; FAIRNESS; MULTIVARIATE STATISTICS; NEWS; POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES; PUBLIC OPINIONS; RISK COMMUNICATION;

SURVEYS;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; BASELINE SURVEY; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTALISM; NUCLEAR POWER; OIL SPILL; POLITICAL IDEOLOGY; PRIVATE SECTOR; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ATLANTIC OCEAN; FUKUSHIMA; GULF OF MEXICO; HONSHU; JAPAN; TOHOKU;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; UNITED STATES;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DATA COLLECTION; RADIOACTIVE HAZARD RELEASE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84900531582     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12151     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Behr P. DOE Delivers its First, Long-Awaited Nuclear Loan Guarantee, 2010. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewire-doe-delivers-its-first-long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html?scp = 1&sq = department%20of%20energy%20loan%20guarantee%20nuclear&st = cse, Accessed on November 11, 2013.
2. Obama B. Remarks by the President on the Economy at Carnegie Mellon University, 2010. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-economy-carnegie-mellon-university, Accessed on June 19, 2010.
3. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Opposition to Nuclear Power Rises amid Japanese Crisis, 2011. Available at: http://people-press.org/files/2011/03/718.pdf, Accessed on November 11, 2013.
4. Jones JM. Disaster in Japan Raises Nuclear Concerns, 2011. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/146660/Disaster-Japan-Raises-Nuclear-Concerns.aspx, Accessed on November 11, 2013.
5. Wald ML. Federal regulators approve two nuclear reactors in Georgia. New York Times 2012, February 10: B3.
6. Wald ML. Despite bipartisan support, nuclear reactor projects falter. New York Times 2011, April 29: B6.
7. Druckman JN, Bolsen T. Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 2011; 61(4):659-88.
8. Kahan DM. "Public Comprehension of Science-Believe it or Not!": The Public and Decision-Relevant Science, 2013. Available at: http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/6/4/public-comprehension-of-science-believe-it-or-not-the-public.html, Accessed on November 11, 2013.
9. Friedman SM, Gorney CM, Egolf BP. Chernobyl coverage: How the US media treated the nuclear industry. Public Understanding of Science, 1992; 1(3):305-323.
10. Friedman SM. Blueprint for breakdown: Three Mile Island and the media before the accident. Journal of Communication, 1981; 31(2):116-128.
11. Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B. Images of disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power. Pp. 223-245 in Goodman G, Rowe W (eds). Energy Risk Management. London, UK: Academic Press, 1979.
12. Gamson WA, Modigliani A. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 1989; 95(1):1-37.
13. Nisbet MC, Lewenstein BV. Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 2002; 23(4):359-391.
14. Priest SH. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 2001; 23(2):97-110.
15. Besley JC, Shanahan J. Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 2005; 26(4): 347-367.
16. Bauer MW. Controversial medical and agri-food biotechnology: A cultivation analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 2002; 11(2):93-111.
17. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Herr Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4(11):752-758.
18. Wahlberg AAF, Sjoberg L. Risk perception and the media. Journal of Risk Research, 2000; 3(1):31-50.
19. Dudo A, Dunwoody S, Scheufele DA. The emergence of nano news: Tracking thematic changes in U.S. newspaper coverage. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2011; 88(1):55-75.
20. Dudo A, Brossard D, Shanahan J, Scheufele DA, Morgan M, Signorielli N. Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 2011; 38(6):754-777.
21. Morgan M, Shanahan J, Signorielli N. Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. Pp. 34-49 in Bryant J, Oliver MB (eds). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2009.
22. Busselle RW, Shrum LJ. Media exposure and exemplar accessibility. Media Psychology, 2003; 5(3):255-282.
23. McLeod JM, Scheufele DA, Moy P. Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 1999; 16(3):315-336.
24. Moy P, Pfau M. With Malice Toward All?: The Media and Public Confidence in Democratic Institutions. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000.
25. Nisbet MC, Goidel RK. Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 2007; 16(4):421-440.
26. Hart PS, Nisbet EC. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 2012; 39(6):701-723.
27. Nir L. Motivated reasoning and public opinion perception. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2011; 75(3):504-532.
28. Perse E. Media Effects and Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
29. Hayes AF, Matthes J. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 2009; 41(3):924-936.
30. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 2005; 27(2):240-267.
31. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 2009; 18(5):546-558.
32. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA. Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2008; 20(2):171-192.
33. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 2009; 4(2):87-90.
34. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 2011; 14(2):147-174.
35. Shanahan J, Morgan M. Television and its Viewers: Cultivation Theory and Research. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
36. Shanahan J, Morgan M, Stenbjerre M. Green or brown? Television and the cultivation of environmental concern. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 1997; 41(3):305-323.
37. Besley JC. The role of entertainment television and its interactions with individual values in explaining political participation. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics, 2006; 11(2):41-63.
38. Midden CJH, Verplanken B. The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1990; 10(2):111-119.
39. Verplanken B. Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environment and Behavior, 1989; 21(4):371-392.
40. Besley JC. Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 2010; 32(2):256-280.
41. Culley MR, Ogley-Oliver E, Carton AD, Street JC. Media framing of proposed nuclear reactors: An analysis of print media. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2010; 20(6):497-512.
42. Fleishman LA, de Bruin WB, Morgan MG. Informed public preferences for electricity portfolios with CCS and other low-carbon technologies. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30(9):1399-1410.
43. Besley JC. Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making? Risk Analysis, 2012; 32(1):25-38.
44. Greenberg M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy, 2009; 37(8):3242-3249.
45. Greenberg M, Truelove HB. Energy choices and risk beliefs: Is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident? Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(5):819-831.
46. Setälä M, Grönlund K, Herne K. Citizen deliberation on nuclear power: A comparison of two decision-making methods. Political Studies, 2010; 58(4):688-714.
47. Corner A, Venables D, Spence A, Poortinga W, Demski C, Pidgeon N. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy, 2011; 39(9):4823-4833.
48. Venables D, Pidgeon N, Simmons P, Henwood K, Parkhill K. Living with nuclear power: A Q-method study of local community perceptions. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(8):1089-1104.
49. Bickerstaff K, Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Simmons P. Reframing Nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science, 2008; 17(2):145-169.
50. Bisconti Research. Increased awareness of nuclear energy's benefits underpins favorability uptick, new poll shows, February 2013. In Series Increased Awareness of Nuclear Energy's Benefits Underpins Favorability Uptick, New Poll Shows, February 2013. Chevy Chase, MD: Nuclear Energy Institute, 2013.
51. Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM. Public attitudes toward construction of new nuclear power plants. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2009; 73(3):566-577.
52. Hung HC, Wang TW. Determinants and mapping of collective perceptions of technological risk: The case of the second nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(4):668-683.
53. Visschers VHM, 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(6):3621-3629.
54. Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 2012; 46(0):292-300.
55. Visschers VHM, 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 Analysis, 2013; 33(2):333-347.
56. Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Journalism.org: News Coverage Index, 2011. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/news_index/99, Accessed on March 27, 2013.
57. Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Journalism.org: New Media Index, 2011. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/news_index/99, Accessed on March 27, 2013.
58. Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. The BP Spill Leads the Disaster List, 2010. Available at: www.journalism.org/numbers_report/bp_spill_leads_disaster_list, Accessed on November 11, 2013.
59. Von Hippel FN. It could happen here. New York Times 2011, March 24, 2011.
60. Nelkin D. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: Freeman; 1987.
61. Chang L, Krosnick JA. National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet. Public Opinion Quarterly, 2009; 73(4):641-678.
62. McComas KA, Besley JC. Fairness and nanotechnology concern. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(11): 1749-1761.
63. Rawls J. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.
64. Tyler TR, Boeckmann RJ, Smith HJ, Huo YJ. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997.
65. Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001; 86(3):386-400.
66. Ambrose ML, Arnaud A. Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct. Pp. 59-85 in Greenberg J, Colquitt JA (eds). Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
67. Bies RJ. Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct. Pp. 59-85 in Greenberg J, Colquitt JA (eds). Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
68. Colquitt JA, Greenberg J, Zapata-Phelan CP. What is organizational justice? A historical overview. Pp. 3-58 in Greenberg J, Colquitt JA (eds). Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
69. Gangl A. Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 2003; 25(2):119-149.
70. Tyler TR. Justice and leadership endorsement. Pp. 257-278 in Lau RR, Sears DO (eds). Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 1986.
71. Besley JC, Diels J. Public meetings in entertainment television programming: Using procedural justice to analyze fictional civic participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2009; 53(3):419-443.
72. Tyler TR, Casper JD, Fisher B. Maintaining allegiance toward political authorities: The role of prior attitudes and the use of fair procedures. American Journal of Political Science, 1989; 33(3):629-652.
73. Besley JC, McComas KA. Reporting on fairness in civic life: Interviews with journalists about writing on local political leaders. Journalism Practice, 2007; 1(3):339-355.
74. Besley JC, McComas KA. Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research. Communication Theory, 2005; 15(4):414-436.
75. Besley JC, McComas KA, Waks L. Media use and the perceived justice of local science authorities. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2006; 83(4):801-818.
76. McComas KA, Trumbo CW, Besley JC. Public meetings about suspected cancer clusters: The impact of voice, interactional justice, and risk perception on attendees' attitudes in six communities. Journal of Health Communication, 2007; 12(6):527-549.
77. Earle TC, Siegrist M. On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(5):1395-1413.
78. Binder AR, Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Shaw BR, Corley EA. Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 2012; 21(7):830-847.
79. Siegrist M, Cousin M-E, Kastenholz H, Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 2007; 49(2):459-466.
80. Zaller JR. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
81. Slater MD, Hayes AF, Ford VL. Examining the moderating and mediating roles of news exposure and attention on adolescent judgments of alcohol-related risks. Communication Research, 2007; 34(4):355-581.
82. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Jones RE. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 2000; 56(3):425-442.
83. Selya AS, Rose JS, Dierker LC, Hedeker D, Mermelstein RJ. A practical guide to calculating Cohen's f2, a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in Psychology, 2012;3.
84. Price V, Neijens P. Opinion quality in public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1997; 9(4):336-360.
85. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(1):199-209.
86. Woodside AG. Overcoming the illusion of will and self-fabrication: Going beyond naïve subjective personal introspection to an unconscious/conscious theory of behavior explanation. Psychology and Marketing, 2006; 23(3):257-272.
87. Jost JT, Federico CM, Napier JL. Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 2009; 60(1):307-337.
88. Newport F. Americans Still Favor Nuclear Power a Year After Fukushima, 2012. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/Americans-Favor-Nuclear-Power-Year-Fukushima.aspx, Accessed on January 7, 2012.