Science Literacy or Value Predisposition? A Meta-Analysis of Factors Predicting Public Perceptions of Benefits, Risks, and Acceptance of Nuclear Energy

References

• References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., & Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ansolabehere, S. D., & Konisky, D. M. (2009). Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 566–577. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp04
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Arikawa, H., Cao, Y., & Matsumoto, S. (2014). Attitudes toward nuclear power and energy-saving behavior among Japanese households. Energy Research & Social Science, 2, 12–20. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.002
   Google Scholar
• *Besley, J. C. (2010). Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 32(2), 256–280. doi: 10.1177/1075547009358624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Besley, J. C., & McComas, K. A. (2015). Something old and something new: Comparing views about nanotechnology and nuclear energy. Journal of Risk Research, 18(2), 215–231. doi: 10.1177/1075547009358624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Bhanthumnavin, D., & Bhanthumnavin, V. (2014). The empirical development of cognitive, affective and behavioral tendency measures of attitudes toward nuclear power plants in Thai university students. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 73, 86–95. doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2013.12.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Bourassa, M., Doraty, K., Berdahl, L., Fried, J., & Bell, S. (2016). Support, opposition, emotion and contentious issue risk perception. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 201–216. doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-10-2015-0172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., & Nisbet, M. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edl003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Cale, T., & Kromer, M. (2015). Does proximity matter? Plant location, public awareness and support for nuclear energy. The Social Science Journal, 52, 148–155. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2015.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. (2006, March). Majority of Americans support use of nuclear energy. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/22171/Majority-Americans-Support-Use-Nuclear-Energy.aspx?g_source=nuclear%20energy&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
   Google Scholar
• *Chung, W., & Yeung, I. M. H. (2013). Attitudes of Hong Kong residents toward the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant. Energy Policy, 62, 1172–1186. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common χ2 tests. Biometrics, 10(4), 417–451. doi: 10.2307/3001616
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 98–101. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
   Google Scholar
• Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 65–83. doi: 10.1037/a0020149
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Corner, A., Venables, D., Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Demski, C., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy, 39(9), 4823–4833. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coughlan, S. (2015). Asia tops biggest global school rankings. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32608772
   Google Scholar
• *de Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2010). Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 30, 1363–1373. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01419.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ertör-Akyazi, P., Adaman, F., Özkaynak, B., & Zenginobuz, Ü. (2012). Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey. Energy Policy, 47, 309–320. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, D. (2008). Risk: The science and politics of fear. Toronto: McClelland & Steward.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza, V. (2007). Managing customer loyalty in liberalized residential energy markets: The impact of energy branding. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2661–2672. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.09.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., D’Souza, C., Echebarria, C., & Barrutia, J. M. (2013). Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: Effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal. Energy Policy, 62, 1366–1376. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *He, G., Mol, A. P. J., Zhang, L., & Lu, Y. (2014). Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: Understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust. Journal of Risk Research, 17(4), 435–451. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2012.726251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Olkinm, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486–504. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinman, G. W., Rosa, E. A., Kleinhesselink, R. R., & Lowinger, T. C. (1993). Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis, 13(4), 449–455. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00745.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ho, J., Lee, C. P., Kao, S., Chen, R., Leong, M. F., Chang, H., … Chang, P. W. (2014). Perceived environmental and health risks of nuclear energy in Taiwan after Fukushima nuclear disaster. Environment International, 73, 295–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S. (2017). Communicating about climate change and nuclear energy. In M. Nisbet, M. S. Schafer, E. Markowitz, S. S. Ho, J. J. Thaker, & S. O’Neill (Eds.), The Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-440
   Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171–192. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edn017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., & McLeod, D. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35(2), 180–207. doi: 10.1177/0093650207313159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S., Scheufele, D. A., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes towards nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12(8), 2703–2715. doi: 10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Atomic Energy Agency. (2014). Climate change and nuclear power 2014. Vienna: Author. Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org/publications/reports
   Google Scholar
• Involve and GuideStar UK. (2008). Better together: Improving consultation with the third sector. A handbook. London: Office of the Third Sector—Cabinet Office and Children England.
   Google Scholar
• Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177–192. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Keller, C., Visschers, V., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis, 32(3), 464–477. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01691.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Kim, S., Krishna, A., & Kim, S. Y. (2012). Understanding public fears on new food technologies: Testing joint effects of cross-situational value predispositions and situational perceptive variables on risk perception about the GMO food issue. Health Communication Research, 6(1), 15342.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., Kim, W., & Kim, M. (2014). An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 66, 475–483. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Li, Q., Fuhrmann, M., Early, B. R., & Vedlitz, A. (2012). Preferences, knowledge, and citizen probability assessments of the terrorism risk of nuclear power. Review of Policy Research, 29(2), 207–227. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00552.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, L., Krishnan, R., & Montgomery, A. L. (2015). Latent homophily or social influence? An empirical analysis of purchase within a social network. Management Science, 61(2), 454–473. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Mah, D. N., Hills, P., & Tao, J. (2014). Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong. Energy Policy, 73, 368–390. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, J. D., & Kimmel, L. (2001). Biomedical communications: Purposes, audiences, and strategies. New York, NY: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. D., Pardo, R., & Niwa, F. (1997). Public perceptions of science and technology: A comparative study of the European Union, the United States, Japan and Canada. Madrid: BBV Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Newport, F. (2011, April). Gallup: Majority of Americans say nuclear power plants in U.S. are safe. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/146939/Majority-Americans-Say-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Safe.aspx?g_source=nuclear%20energy&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
   Google Scholar
• Newport, F. (2012). Americans still favor nuclear power a year after Fukushima. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.bluecastleproject.com/files/news_items/109-326%2012%20Americans%20Still%20Favor%20Nuclear%20Power%20a%20Year%20After%20Fukushima.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M., & Scheufele, D. A. (2007). The future of public engagement. The Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25447/title/The-Future-of-Public-Engagement/
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next of science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. doi: 10.3732/ajb.0900041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Park, E., & Ohm, J. Y. (2014). Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Energy Policy, 65, 198–211. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Perko, T., Adam, B., & Stassen, K. R. (2015). The differences in perception of radiological risks: Lay people versus new and experienced employees in the nuclear sector. Journal of Risk Research, 18(1), 40–54. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2013.879488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N. F., Henwood, K. L., Parkhill, K. A., Venables, D., & Simmons, P. (2008). Living with nuclear power in Britain: A mixed-methods study. Cardiff: Cardiff University. Retrieved from http://psych.cf.ac.uk/understandingrisk/docs/livingwithnuclearpower.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I., & Poortinga, W. (2008). Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18, 69–85. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Prati, G., & Zani, B. (2013). The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environment and Behavior, 45(6), 782–798. doi: 10.1177/0013916512444286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-Analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 512–556. doi: 10.1177/0162243903259197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659–667. doi: 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Showers, D. E., & Shrigley, R. L. (1995). Effects of knowledge and persuasion on high-school students’ attitudes toward nuclear power plants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 29–43. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713–720. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.205064
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Siegrist, M., Sutterlin, B., & Keller, C. (2014). Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima? Energy Policy, 69, 356–363. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. H. (2013). Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59, 112–119. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöberg, L. (2002). Are received risk perception models alive and well? Risk Analysis, 22(4), 665–669. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skea, J., Lechtenböhmer, S., & Asuka, J. (2013). Climate policies after Fukushima: Three views. Climate Policy, 13, 36–54. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2013.756670
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Stoutenborough, J., Sturgess, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2013). Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy, 62, 176–184. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Su, X., Wu, C., Liao, Y., Lee, T., & Tsao, C. (2015). The rationale for supporting nuclear power: Analysis of Taiwanese public opinion survey. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 15(1), 147–176. doi: 10.1093/irap/lcu019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Trousset, S., Gupta, K., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C. L., & Herron, K. (2015). Degrees of engagement: Using cultural worldviews to explain variations in public preferences for engagement in the policy process. The Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 44–69. doi: 10.1111/psj.12083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Venables, D., Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K. A., Henwood, K. L., & Simmons, P. (2012). Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 371–383. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Viklund, M. (2004). Energy policy options–from the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions. Energy Policy, 32, 1159–1171. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00079-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Visschers, V. H., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3621–3629. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 46, 292–300. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.062
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (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. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallard, H., Duffy, B., & Cornick, P. (2012). After Fukushima: Global opinion on energy policy. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/publication/1970-01/ipsos-sri-after-fukushima-march-2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• *Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425–437. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Zhu, W., Wei, J., & Zhao, D. (2016). Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception. Energy Policy, 88, 168–177. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar