Affective Imagery and Acceptance of Replacing Nuclear Power Plants

This study examined the relationship between the content of spontaneous associations with nuclear power plants and the acceptance of using new-generation nuclear power plants to replace old ones. The study also considered gender as a variable. A representative sample of the German- and French-speaking population of Switzerland (N= 1,221) was used. Log-linear models revealed significant two-way interactions between the association content and acceptance, association content and gender, and gender and acceptance. Correspondence analysis revealed that participants who were opposed to nuclear power plants mainly associated nuclear power plants with risk, negative feelings, accidents, radioactivity, waste disposal, military use, and negative consequences for health and environment; whereas participants favoring nuclear power plants mainly associated them with energy, appearance descriptions of nuclear power plants, and necessity. Thus, individuals opposing nuclear power plants had both more concrete and more diverse associations with them than people who were in favor of nuclear power plants. In addition, participants who were undecided often mentioned similar associations to those participants who were in favor. Males more often expressed associations with energy, waste disposal, and negative health effects. Females more often made associations with appearance descriptions, negative feelings, and negative environmental effects. The results further suggest that acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants was higher in the German-speaking part of the country, where all of the Swiss nuclear power plants are physically located. Practical implications for risk communication are discussed.

[1]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[3]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  Cross‐National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” Among Laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain , 2006 .

[5]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Climate change or nuclear power-No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain , 2008 .

[7]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Living with Nuclear Power: A Q‐Method Study of Local Community Perceptions , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  G. Fricchione Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain , 1995 .

[9]  F. Strack,et al.  Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[10]  Ken Kasper Nuclear power 2010. , 2005, Health physics.

[11]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model , 2011 .

[12]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  E. Rosa,et al.  Déjà Vu All Over Again for Nuclear Power? , 2005, Science.

[14]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  Lennart Sj Local Acceptance of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository , 2004 .

[16]  Michael R Greenberg,et al.  NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear‐Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site‐Specific Surveys , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power1 , 1996 .

[18]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain: Summary findings of a survey conducted during Otober and November 2005 , 2006 .

[20]  P. Simmons,et al.  Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste , 2008, Public understanding of science.

[21]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  An Emotion‐Based Model of Risk Perception and Stigma Susceptibility: Cognitive Appraisals of Emotion, Affective Reactivity, Worldviews, and Risk Perceptions in the Generation of Technological Stigma † , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[22]  B. L. Roux,et al.  Multiple Correspondence Analysis , 2009 .

[23]  James Flynn,et al.  Risk Perception, Trust, and Nuclear Waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain , 1991 .

[24]  P Slovic,et al.  Adolescent health-threatening and health-enhancing behaviors: a study of word association and imagery. , 1995, The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

[25]  D. Venables,et al.  From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents’ perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK , 2010 .

[26]  Sten-Erik Clausen,et al.  Applied correspondence analysis : an introduction , 1998 .

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

[28]  Lorand B. Szalay,et al.  Subjective meaning and culture : an assessment through word associations , 1978 .

[29]  Eugene A. Rosa,et al.  THE POLLS—POLL TRENDS: NUCLEAR POWER: THREE DECADES OF PUBLIC OPINION , 1994 .

[30]  P Slovic,et al.  Public perception of the risk ofblood transfusion , 2000, Transfusion.

[31]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste , 1991, Science.

[32]  Anthony A Leiserowitz,et al.  American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous? , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[33]  A. Damasio The feeling of what happens , 2001 .

[34]  H. Kastenholz,et al.  Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust , 2007, Appetite.

[35]  Elias Mossialos,et al.  Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[36]  Linda Steg,et al.  Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[37]  D. Kahneman A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. , 2003, The American psychologist.