IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v10y1990i3p393-399.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of the Chernobyl Accident on Public Perceptions of Nuclear Plant Accident Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Michael K. Lindell
  • Ronald W. Perry

Abstract

Assessments of public perceptions of the characteristics of a nuclear power plant accident and affective responses to its likelihood were conducted 5 months before and 1 month after the Chernobyl accident. Analyses of data from 69 residents of southwestern Washington showed significant test‐retest correlations for only 10 of 18 variables—accident likelihood, three measures of impact characteristics, three measures of affective reactions, and hazard knowledge by governmental sources. Of these variables, only two had significant changes in mean ratings; frequency of thought and frequency of discussion about a nearby nuclear power plant both increased. While there were significant changes only for two personal consequences (expectations of cancer and genetic effects), both of these decreased. The results of this study indicate that more attention should be given to assessing the stability of risk perceptions over time. Moreover, the data demonstrate that experience with a major accident can actually decrease rather than increase perceptions of threat.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 1990. "Effects of the Chernobyl Accident on Public Perceptions of Nuclear Plant Accident Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 393-399, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:3:p:393-399
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00522.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00522.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00522.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward J. Burger, 1988. "How Citizens Think About Risks to Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 309-313, September.
    2. Timothy L. McDaniels, 1988. "Chernobyl's Effects on the Perceived Risks of Nuclear Power: A Small Sample Test," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 457-461, September.
    3. Nancy Nighswonger Kraus & Paul Slovic, 1988. "Taxonomic Analysis of Perceived Risk: Modeling Individual and Group Perceptions Within Homogeneous Hazard Domains," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 435-455, September.
    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. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    2. Teun Terpstra & Michael K. Lindell & Jan M. Gutteling, 2009. "Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions? Results of a Quasi‐Experimental Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1141-1155, August.
    3. Siegrist, Michael & Sütterlin, Bernadette & Keller, Carmen, 2014. "Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 356-363.
    4. Grishnova Olena & Bereziuk Kateryna & Bilan Yuriy, 2021. "Evaluation of the level of corporate social responsibility of Ukrainian nuclear energy producers," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 16(2), pages 152-166, June.
    5. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    6. Michael K. Lindell & Sudha Arlikatti & Carla S. Prater, 2009. "Why People Do What They Do to Protect Against Earthquake Risk: Perceptions of Hazard Adjustment Attributes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1072-1088, August.
    7. Heather Lazrus & Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Ann Bostrom, 2016. "“Know What to Do If You Encounter a Flash Flood”: Mental Models Analysis for Improving Flash Flood Risk Communication and Public Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 411-427, February.
    8. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    9. Nicole M. A. Huijts & Gerdien de Vries & Eric J. E. Molin, 2019. "A positive Shift in the Public Acceptability of a Low-Carbon Energy Project After Implementation: The Case of a Hydrogen Fuel Station," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, April.
    10. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.

    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. 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.
    2. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    3. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    4. Sara Jonsson & Inga-Lill Söderberg, 2018. "Investigating explanatory theories on laypeople’s risk perception of personal economic collapse in a bank crisis – the Cyprus case," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 763-779, June.
    5. Joanna Burger & Michael Gochfeld, 1991. "Fishing a Superfund Site: Dissonance and Risk Perception of Environmental Hazards by Fishermen in Puerto Rico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 269-277, June.
    6. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    7. Gregory W. Fischer & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Indira Nair & Lester B. Lave, 1991. "What Risks Are People Concerned About," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 303-314, June.
    8. Agathe Backer‐Grøndahl & Aslak Fyhri & Pål Ulleberg & Astrid Helene Amundsen, 2009. "Accidents and Unpleasant Incidents: Worry in Transport and Prediction of Travel Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1217-1226, September.
    9. Grant, Kevin & Edgar, David & Sukumar, Arun & Meyer, Martin, 2014. "‘Risky business’: Perceptions of e-business risk by UK small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 99-122.
    10. Robert Coles & Gerard P. Hodgkinson, 2008. "A Psychometric Study of Information Technology Risks in the Workplace," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 81-93, February.
    11. Caudill, James D. & Hoehn, John P., 1992. "The Economic Valuation of Groundwater Pollution Policies: The Role of Subjective Risk Perceptions," Staff Paper Series 201145, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    12. James K. Hammitt & Jonathan B. Wiener & Brendon Swedlow & Denise Kall & Zheng Zhou, 2005. "Precautionary Regulation in Europe and the United States: A Quantitative Comparison," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1215-1228, October.
    13. Sarah E. Hampson & Judy A. Andrews & Michael E. Lee & Lyn S. Foster & Russell E. Glasgow & Edward Liechtenstein, 1998. "Lay Understanding of Synergistic Risk: The Case of Radon and Cigarette Smoking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 343-350, June.
    14. Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John & Fynnwin Prager, 2012. "Flu, Risks, and Videotape: Escalating Fear and Avoidance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 729-743, April.
    15. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.
    16. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    17. M. Figuié & T. Fournier, 2008. "Avian Influenza in Vietnam: Chicken‐Hearted Consumers?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 441-451, April.
    18. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    19. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez, 2008. "Participant-focused analysis: explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 735-753, September.
    20. Deana Grobe & Robin Douthitt & Lydia Zepeda, 1999. "A Model of Consumers' Risk Perceptions Toward Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH): The Impact of Risk Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 661-673, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:3:p:393-399. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.