IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v67y2014icp727-736.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Yeo, Sara K.
  • Cacciatore, Michael A.
  • Brossard, Dominique
  • Scheufele, Dietram A.
  • Runge, Kristin
  • Su, Leona Y.
  • Kim, Jiyoun
  • Xenos, Michael
  • Corley, Elizabeth A.

Abstract

This study examines risk perceptions toward nuclear power before and after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster using nationally representative survey samples of American adults.

Suggested Citation

  • Yeo, Sara K. & Cacciatore, Michael A. & Brossard, Dominique & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Runge, Kristin & Su, Leona Y. & Kim, Jiyoun & Xenos, Michael & Corley, Elizabeth A., 2014. "Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 727-736.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:67:y:2014:i:c:p:727-736
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513011919
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.061?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    2. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    3. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    4. Chris Fife-Schaw & Gene Rowe, 2000. "Research Note: Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 167-179.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Chung, Ji-Bum, 2020. "Public deliberation on the national nuclear energy policy in Korea – Small successes but bigger challenges," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Pawel Robert Smolinski & Joseph Januszewicz & Barbara Pawlowska & Jacek Winiarski, 2023. "Nuclear Energy Acceptance in Poland: From Societal Attitudes to Effective Policy Strategies -- Network Modeling Approach," Papers 2309.14869, arXiv.org.
    4. Moon, Won-Ki & Kahlor, Lee Ann & Olson, Hilary Clement, 2020. "Understanding public support for carbon capture and storage policy: The roles of social capital, stakeholder perceptions, and perceived risk/benefit of technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    5. Jessica E. Boscarino, 2019. "From Three Mile Island to Fukushima: the impact of analogy on attitudes toward nuclear power," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 21-42, March.
    6. Clau Dermont & Lorenz Kammermann, 2020. "Political Candidates and the Energy Issue: Nuclear Power Position and Electoral Success," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(3), pages 369-385, May.
    7. Ho, Shirley S. & Xiong, Rui & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2021. "Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    8. Chung, Ji-Bum & Kim, Eun-Sung, 2018. "Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-144.
    9. Ming, Zeng & Yingxin, Liu & Shaojie, Ouyang & Hui, Shi & Chunxue, Li, 2016. "Nuclear energy in the Post-Fukushima Era: Research on the developments of the Chinese and worldwide nuclear power industries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 147-156.
    10. Grace Dehner & Mark K. McBeth & Rae Moss & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "A Zero-Carbon Nuclear Energy Future? Lessons Learned from Perceptions of Climate Change and Nuclear Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    12. Michael A. Cacciatore & Glen J. Nowak & Nathaniel J. Evans, 2018. "It's Complicated: The 2014–2015 U.S. Measles Outbreak and Parents’ Vaccination Beliefs, Confidence, and Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2178-2192, October.
    13. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    14. Wu, Yican, 2017. "Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 484-491.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    2. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    3. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    4. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    5. Ding, Yulian & Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2009. "BSE and the Dynamics of Beef Consumption: Influences of Habit and Trust," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49284, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    8. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    10. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    11. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    12. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    13. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Grant Lewison, 2007. "The reporting of the risks from genetically modified organisms in the mass media, 2002–2004," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 439-458, September.
    15. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    16. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    17. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    18. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    19. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    20. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:67:y:2014:i:c:p:727-736. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.