“I can live with nuclear energy if…”: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore

Abstract Considering the growing salience of nuclear energy in Southeast Asia, this study examines public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore, a technologically-advanced and affluent nation well-equipped to develop nuclear energy capabilities. Drawing from the source credibility theory, this study examines the public's credibility perceptions of nuclear-related information sources, and their trust in potential stakeholders. Guided by the psychometric paradigm, this study also explores public perceptions of risks, benefits, and support. Four focus group discussions were conducted with Singaporeans aged 18–69. Participants across different age groups (e.g., Millennials, Generation X, Baby Boomers) concurred in their trust of potential stakeholders, risk perception, cost perception, and support. Intergenerational differences were observed for participants’ media use, credibility perceptions of nuclear-related information sources, and benefit perception. This study contributed theoretically by applying the source credibility theory and psychometric paradigm in an under-studied context. Practical implications were provided for policymakers and communication practitioners to effectively evaluate public awareness and acceptance for nuclear energy. Directions for future research were discussed. In conclusion, intergenerational similarities were observed for Singaporeans’ perceptions of risks, costs, and support. Meanwhile intergenerational differences were noted for their credibility perceptions of nuclear-related information sources, trust in potential stakeholders, and benefit perception.

[1]  K. Callaghan,et al.  Who says what to whom: Why messengers and citizen beliefs matter in social policy framing , 2009 .

[2]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[3]  Paul N. Goren,et al.  Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression , 2009 .

[4]  Edson C. Tandoc,et al.  Science Literacy or Value Predisposition? A Meta-Analysis of Factors Predicting Public Perceptions of Benefits, Risks, and Acceptance of Nuclear Energy , 2019 .

[5]  N. Pfeffer.  What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: a focus group study. , 2008, Social science & medicine.

[6]  Susan T. Fiske,et al.  Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  M. Mason.  Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews , 2010 .

[8]  J. Besley,et al.  Something old and something new: comparing views about nanotechnology and nuclear energy , 2015 .

[9]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  G. Sinatra,et al.  Source Effects and Plausibility Judgments When Reading About Climate Change , 2014 .

[11]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[12]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[13]  Roobina Ohanian.  The impact of celebrity spokespersons' perceived image on consumers' intention to purchase. , 1991 .

[14]  J. Morse.  Determining Sample Size , 2000 .

[15]  Group Depth Interviews: Focus Group Research , 2009 .

[16]  Gerhard A. Wuehrer,et al.  Celebrity and foreign brand name as moderators of country-of-origin effects , 2005 .

[17]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence , 2005 .

[18]  J. Whitehead.  Factors of source credibility , 1968 .

[19]  N. Miller,et al.  Speed of speech and persuasion. , 1976 .

[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]  Janet Smithson,et al.  Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities , 2000 .

[22]  Yvonne Rydin,et al.  “Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS , 2014 .

[23]  H. Kelman.  PROCESSES OF OPINION CHANGE , 1961 .

[24]  N. Leech,et al.  A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research , 2009 .

[25]  James B. Lemert,et al.  DIMENSIONS FOR EVALUATING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF MESSAGE SOURCES , 1969 .

[26]  M. Patton.  Qualitative research & evaluation methods , 2002 .

[27]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Affective Imagery and Acceptance of Replacing Nuclear Power Plants , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  Sezer Korkmaz,et al.  Examining the Effect of Endorser Credibility on the Consumers' Buying Intentions: An Empirical Study in Turkey , 2014 .

[29]  Eunil Park,et al.  Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident , 2014 .

[30]  Timothy D. Hadlock,et al.  Public perceptions of plant biotechnology—a focus group study , 2003 .

[31]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[32]  D. Mah,et al.  Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong , 2014 .

[33]  S. Bell,et al.  Exploring Perceptions of Credible Science Among Policy Stakeholder Groups , 2016 .

[34]  James N. Druckman,et al.  The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence , 2001 .

[35]  S. Priest,et al.  Understanding public support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors , 2009 .

[36]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities , 2012 .

[37]  Martha Ann Carey,et al.  Focus Group Research , 2012 .

[38]  Mattias Viklund.  Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[40]  James W. Stoutenborough,et al.  Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power , 2013 .

[41]  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.

[42]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants , 2012 .

[43]  Susanna Hornig Priest.  Encyclopedia of science and technology communication , 2010 .

[44]  J. Mccroskey.  Scales for the measurement of ethos , 1966 .

[45]  Public Perceptions of Expert Credibility on Policy Issues: The Role of Expert Framing and Political Worldviews , 2014 .

[46]  Begüm Özkaynak,et al.  Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey , 2012 .

[47]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. , 1999 .

[48]  D. V. D. Waldt,et al.  Celebrity endorsements versus created spokespersons in advertising: a survey among students , 2011 .

[49]  C Marris,et al.  Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[50]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change , 1982 .