Public anxiety, trust, and the role of mediators in communicating risk of exposure to low dose radiation after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant explosion

The explosion at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant highlighted serious social concerns about risk communications; the public found it difficult to take preventive actions based on scientific information of radioactive fallout. We investigated public perception of the risks from low dose radiation and the role of information providers through the Internet survey focusing on parents in four Japanese regional groups. Mothers felt more anxious than fathers in Fukushima but not in further groups, and that the furthest group felt the most ambiguous anxiety. Their anxiety derived from distrust of the government and uncertainty about scientific information, rather than the lack of knowledge although risk communication emphasized learning the scientific mechanism. The mediators should provide more information for individual decision-making of day-to-day risk management in regions with different levels of radiological contamination; key issues include improving parents’ perceived control to their lives and easing their tension of responsibility to children’s health.

[1]  Christopher E. Clarke,et al.  Efficacy Information in Media Coverage of Infectious Disease Risks , 2012 .

[2]  S. Friedman,et al.  Chernobyl coverage: how the US media treated the nuclear industry , 1992 .

[3]  Leon Mann,et al.  Nuclear attitudes after chernobyl: a cross-national study , 1990 .

[4]  A Comparison of Residents Who Moved Versus Those Who Remained Prior to Restart of Three Mile Island1 , 1989 .

[5]  Anne Pedersen,et al.  Anger and Guilt About Ingroup Advantage Explain the Willingness for Political Action , 2006, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[6]  Teun Terpstra,et al.  Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research , 2013, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  Lillian Trettin,et al.  Is Trust a Realistic Goal of Environmental Risk Communication? , 2000 .

[8]  J. L. Durfee “Social Change” and “Status Quo” Framing Effects on Risk Perception , 2006 .

[9]  Iain Walker,et al.  Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development, and Integration , 2001 .

[10]  Margôt Kuttschreuter,et al.  The Development of Risk Communication , 2004 .

[11]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science , 1992 .

[12]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Exploring the Triangular Relationship Between Trust, Affect, and Risk Perception: A Review of the Literature , 2008 .

[13]  R. Paine `Chernobyl' reaches Norway: the accident, science, and the threat to cultural knowledge , 1992 .

[14]  S. Reeves,et al.  Discourse Analysis , 2018, The Study of Language.

[15]  Bridging the gap between science and policy: the importance of mutual respect, trust and the role of mediators , 2012 .

[16]  N. Allum,et al.  Exploring public discourses about emerging technologies through statistical clustering of open-ended survey questions , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[17]  A. Wåhlberg,et al.  Risk perception and the media , 2000 .

[18]  S. Friedman Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of nuclear accidents and radiation , 2011 .

[19]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[20]  Åsa Boholm,et al.  New perspectives on risk communication: uncertainty in a complex society , 2008 .

[21]  S. Prince-Embury,et al.  Perception of Control and Faith in Experts Among Residents in the Vicinity of Three Mile Island1 , 1987 .

[22]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Risk communication: A mental models approach , 2003 .

[23]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public responses to the Chernobyl accident , 1990 .

[24]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  A Comparison of Responses to Internet and Postal Surveys in a Public Engagement Context , 2006 .

[25]  H. P. Peters The credibility of information sources in West Germany after the Chernobyl disaster , 1992 .

[26]  Frank von Hippel,et al.  The radiological and psychological consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident , 2011 .

[27]  L. Lemyre,et al.  Psychosocial considerations for mass decontamination. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[28]  T. Postmes,et al.  Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[29]  T. Earle,et al.  What was the meaning of chernobyl , 1990 .

[30]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Risk perception and worries after the chernobyl accident , 1990 .

[31]  W. Leiss Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice , 1996 .

[32]  R. P. Wilson,et al.  Accident? , 1956, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

[33]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[34]  C. Waddell The role of pathos in the decision‐making process: A study in the rhetoric of science policy , 1990 .