Testing the heuristic/systematic information-processing model (HSM) on the perception of risk after the Fukushima nuclear accidents

References

• Besley, J. C., and S. Oh. 2013. “The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy.” Risk Analysis. doi:10.1111/risa.12151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohner, G., G. Moskowitz, and S. Chaiken. 1995. “The Interplay of Heuristic and Systematic Processing of Social Information.” European Review of Social Psychology 6: 33–68.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., R. E. Petty, and K. J. Morris. 1983. “Effects of Need for Cognition on Message Evaluation, Recall, and Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 805–818.10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. 1980. “Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5): 752–766.10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. 1987. “The Heuristic Model of Persuasion.” In Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, edited by M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Herman, Vol. 5, 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., and A. H. Eagly. 1983. “Communication Modality as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Role of Communicator Salience.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (2): 241–256.10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., A. Liberman, and A. H. Eagly. 1989. “Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within and beyond the Persuasion Context.” In Unintended Thought, edited by J. S. Uleman and J. A. Bargh, 212–252. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., and D. Maheswaran. 1994. “Heuristic Processing can Bias Systematic Processing: Effects of Source Credibility, Argument Ambiguity, and Task Importance on Attitude Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66: 460–473.10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., W. Wood, and A. H. Eagly. 1996. “Principles of Persuasion.” In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, edited by E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski, 702–742. New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S., and S. Chaiken. 1999. “The Heuristic–Systematic Model in Its Broader Context.” In Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology, edited by S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, 73–96. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S., K. Duckworth, and S. Chaiken. 1999. “Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing.” Psychological Inquiry 10 (1): 44–49.10.1207/s15327965pli1001_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S., D. Shechter, and S. Chaiken. 1996. “Getting at the Truth or Getting along: Accuracy-versus Impression-motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (2): 262–275.10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Frewer, L. J., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd. 1996. “What Determines Trust in Information about Food-related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs.” Risk Analysis 16 (4): 473–486.10.1111/risk.1996.16.issue-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, M. C., and T. C. Brock. 2002. “In the Mind’s Eye: Transportation-imagery Model of Narrative Persuasion.” In Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations, edited by M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, and T. C. Brock, 315–341. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hagmann, J. 2012. “Fukushima: Probing the Analytical and Epistemological Limits of Risk Analysis.” Journal of Risk Research 15 (7): 801–815.10.1080/13669877.2012.657223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, G., A. Mol, L. Zhang, and Y. Lu. 2014. “Nuclear Power in China after Fukushima: Understanding Public Knowledge, Attitudes, and Trust.” Journal of Risk Research 17 (4): 435–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ipsos. 2011. “Global Citizen Reaction to the Fukushima Nuclear Plant Disaster.” http://www.ipsos-mori.com.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. T., and A. H. Eagly. 1989. “Effects of Involvement on Persuasion: A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 106 (2): 290–314.10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheswaran, D., and S. Chaiken. 1991. “Promoting Systematic Processing in Low-motivation Settings: Effect of Incongruent Information on Processing and Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 (1): 13–25.10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy, J., and B. Sternthal. 1991. “Gender Differences in the Use of Message Cues and Judgments.” Journal of Marketing Research 28: 84–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelham, Brett W., and N. Efrat. 1995. “The Effect of Motivation of Judgment Depends on the Difficulty of the Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (4): 581–594.10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1979. “Issue-involvement can Increase or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-relevant Cognitive Responses.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1915–1926.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1981. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1984. “Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Consumer Research 11: 668–672.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, edited by L. Berkovitz, Vol. 19, 123–205. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and R. Goldman. 1981. “Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-based Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41: 847–855.10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholten, L., D. van Knippenberg, B. A. Nijstad, and C. K. W. De Dreu. 2007. “Motivated Information Processing and Group Decision-making: Effects of Process Accountability on Information Processing and Decision Quality.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (4): 539–552.10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steuer, J. 1995. “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence.” In Communication in the Age of Virtual Reality, edited by F. Biocca and M. R. Levy, 33–56. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
   Google Scholar
• Trumbo, C. W. 1999. “Heuristic–Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment.” Risk Analysis 19 (3): 391–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trumbo, C. W., and K. A. McComas. 2003. “The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception.” Risk Analysis 23: 343–353.10.1111/risk.2003.23.issue-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visschers, V. H., and M. 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 33 (2): 333–347.10.1111/risk.2013.33.issue-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yasui, S. 2013. “An Analysis of the Argument over the Health Effects of Low-dose Radiation Exposure Caused by the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi APP in Japan.” Journal of Risk Research 16 (8): 937–944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar