hysical risks. The policy makers' own attitudes were found to be significantly more favorable than those of the total public sample; this was primarily because the policy makers' beliefs about psychological risks made a significantly smaller negative contribution to attitude, and their beliefs about environmental risks made a significantly larger positive contribution. Tkhe policy makers were able to shift their own (personal) responses in the directions indicated by their role-play assignments to reproduce accurately the overall attitudes of the PRO and CON groups on this controversial topic, although there was a tendency to overestimate the positive attitudes of the PRO nuclear public. In terms of the underlying belief dimensions, however, there was a significant faiure to recognize the extent to which issues of psycholo;gical significance contribute negatively to the attitudes of both PRO and CON public groups. The policy makers underestimated the negative value both groups assigned to these risks as well as the extent to which the public believed that nuclear energy would lead to such risks.
[1]
H. J. Otway,et al.
The Determinants of Attitude Formation: An Application to Nuclear Power
,
1976
.
[2]
I. Ajzen,et al.
Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research
,
1977
.
[3]
C. Osgood,et al.
The Measurement of Meaning
,
1958
.
[4]
Salzburg Austria its Fuel Cycle.
Nuclear power and its fuel cycle : proceedings of an International Conference on Nuclear Power and its Fuel Cycle held by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Salzburg, 2-13 May 1977
,
1977
.
[5]
H. J. Otway,et al.
Nuclear power: The question of public acceptance
,
1978
.