IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ininma/v35y2015i1p57-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An investigation into the impact of information behaviour on information failure: The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power disaster

Author

Listed:
  • Thatcher, Andrew
  • Vasconcelos, Ana C.
  • Ellis, David

Abstract

Research into information failure has often focussed on deficiencies in information systems and research into information behaviour has often placed emphasis on the individual and his/her interactions, with some work focusing on organisational information behaviours and their contribution to information failures. Using the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power disaster as a case study this paper examines the impact of information behaviours on information failure, taking into account Affective Load Theory, Face Threat Theory and Escalation Theory. Content/Discourse analysis was carried out on four major reports on the Fukushima disaster, employing the constant comparison method of analysis to develop and explore categories representing different views of the actors involved. The findings revealed that an escalation of commitment to a ‘myth of nuclear safety’ occurred over the lifetime of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. This escalation ingrained information avoiding and ignoring behaviours in the Japanese nuclear industry, from the electric companies themselves to the local population living near nuclear power plants, allowing safety standards to fall, leaving Fukushima Daiichi vulnerable to threats such as earthquakes and tsunamis. A framework was developed explaining how escalating commitment interacts with information behaviour exhibited by the key actors in the situation.

Suggested Citation

  • Thatcher, Andrew & Vasconcelos, Ana C. & Ellis, David, 2015. "An investigation into the impact of information behaviour on information failure: The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power disaster," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-63.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ininma:v:35:y:2015:i:1:p:57-63
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401214001017
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.002?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. Elfreda A. Chatman, 1999. "A theory of life in the round," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 50(3), pages 207-217.
    2. E. L. Quarantelli, 1988. "Disaster Crisis Management: A Summary Of Research Findings," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 373-385, July.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Whyte, Glen, 1993. "Escalating Commitment in Individual and Group Decision Making: A Prospect Theory Approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 430-455, April.
    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. Li, Jo-Yun & Qiao, Shan & Harrison, Sayward & Li, Xiaoming, 2017. "Utilizing an interpersonal communication framework to understand information behaviors involved in HIV disclosure," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 250-256.

    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. Meloria Meschi & Carla Pace, 2012. "Accounting for Behavioral Biases for Non-biased Demand Estimations," Chapters, in: Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer (ed.), Multi-Modal Competition and the Future of Mail, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Peter A. F. Fraser‐Mackenzie & Tiejun Ma & Ming‐Chien Sung & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2019. "Let's Call it Quits: Break‐Even Effects in the Decision to Stop Taking Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1560-1581, July.
    3. Daniel Friedman & Kai Pommerenke & Rajan Lukose & Garrett Milam & Bernardo Huberman, 2007. "Searching for the sunk cost fallacy," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(1), pages 79-104, March.
    4. Florian Heine & Martin Sefton, 2018. "To Tender or Not to Tender? Deliberate and Exogenous Sunk Costs in a Public Good Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-28, June.
    5. Duxbury, Darren, 2012. "Sunk costs and sunk benefits: A re-examination of re-investment decisions," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 144-156.
    6. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "Do casinos pay their customers to become risk-averse? Revising the house money effect in a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 736-754, September.
    7. Wennberg, Karl & Delmar, Frédéric & McKelvie, Alexander, 2016. "Variable risk preferences in new firm growth and survival," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 408-427.
    8. Rau, Holger A., 2015. "The disposition effect in team investment decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 272-282.
    9. Edwards, Kimberley D., 1996. "Prospect theory: A literature review," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 19-38.
    10. Gowdy, John M., 2008. "Behavioral economics and climate change policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 632-644, December.
    11. Paul M. Vaaler & Gerry McNamara, 2004. "Crisis and Competition in Expert Organizational Decision Making: Credit-Rating Agencies and Their Response to Turbulence in Emerging Economies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 687-703, December.
    12. Ariel S. Levi & Glen Whyte, 1997. "A Cross-Cultural Exploration of the Reference Dependence of Crucial Group Decisions under Risk," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(6), pages 792-813, December.
    13. Dorthe Døjbak Håkonsson & Jacob Kjær Eskildsen & Linda Argote & Dan Mønster & Richard M. Burton & Børge Obel, 2016. "Exploration versus exploitation: Emotions and performance as antecedents and consequences of team decisions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 985-1001, June.
    14. Salter, Stephen B. & Sharp, David J. & Chen, Yasheng, 2013. "The moderating effects of national culture on escalation of commitment," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 161-169.
    15. Rau, Holger A., 2015. "The disposition effect in team investment decisions: Experimental evidence," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 256, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    16. Tori Y. Huang & Vangelis Souitaris & Sigal G. Barsade, 2019. "Which matters more? Group fear versus hope in entrepreneurial escalation of commitment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(11), pages 1852-1881, November.
    17. William A. Boettcher III & Michael D. Cobb, 2009. "“Don’t Let Them Die in Vainâ€," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 677-697, October.
    18. Salter, Stephen B. & Sharp, David J., 2001. "Agency effects and escalation of commitment: do small national culture differences matter?," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 33-45, February.
    19. Moon, Henry & Conlon, Donald E. & Humphrey, Stephen E. & Quigley, Narda & Devers, Cynthia E. & Nowakowski, Jaclyn M., 2003. "Group decision process and incrementalism in organizational decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 67-79.
    20. Whyte, Glen, 1998. "Recasting Janis's Groupthink Model: The Key Role of Collective Efficacy in Decision Fiascoes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 185-209, February.

    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:ininma:v:35:y:2015:i:1:p:57-63. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-information-management .

    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.