Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T08:04:21.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1987

Stanley Rothman  and
S. Robert Lichter
Stanley Rothman
Affiliation:
Smith College
S. Robert Lichter
Affiliation:
George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Changing U.S. attitudes toward new technologies are examined, as are explanations of such changes. We hypothesize that increased concern with the risks of new technologies by certain elite groups is partly a surrogate for underlying ideological criticisms of U.S. society. The question of risk is examined within the framework of the debate over nuclear energy. Studies of various leadership groups are used to demonstrate the ideological component of risk assessment. Studies of scientists' and journalists' attitudes, media coverage of nuclear energy, and public perception of scientists' views suggest both that journalists' ideologies influence their coverage of nuclear energy and that media coverage of the issue is partly responsible for public misperceptions of the views of scientists. We conclude with a discussion of the historical development of the environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s and the relation of this movement to the public's declining support for nuclear energy.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 383 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aharoni, Yair. 1981. The No-Risk Society. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Barkenbus, Jack N. 1986. Nuclear Regulatory Reform: A Technology-forcing Approach. Issues in Science and Technology 2:102–10.Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel. 1976. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brooks, Harvey. 1979. Technology: Hope or Catastrophe? Technology in Society 1:3–17.10.1016/0160-791X(79)90003-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cohen, Bernard. 1983. Before It's Too Late: A Scientist's Case for Nuclear Energy. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4684-4577-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, Barbara, and Slovic, Paul. 1979. Newspaper Coverage of Causes of Death. Journalism Quarterly 56:837–43.10.1177/107769907905600420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commoner, Barry. 1971. The Closing Circle. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Del Sesto, Steven L. 1979. Science, Politics, and Controversy: Civilian Nuclear Power in the United States, 1946–1974. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Dubos, Rene. 1980. The Wooing of Earth. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Dunlap, Riley E., and Olsen, Marvin E.. 1984. Hard-Path versus Soft-Path Advocates: A Study of Energy Activists. Policy Studies Journal 13: 413-28.10.1111/j.1541-0072.1984.tb00352.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, Edith. 1984. The Apocalytics. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Eisenbud, Merrill. 1978. Environment, Technology, and Health: Health Ecology in Historical Perspective. New York: New York University Press.10.1007/978-1-349-04752-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environmental Update. 1982. Public Opinion 5: 32–37.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel. 1979. The Politics of Cancer. San Francisco: Sierra Club.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faich, Ronald O., and Gale, Richard P.. 1971. The Environmental Movement: From Recreation to Politics. Pacific Sociological Review 14:270–81.10.2307/1388642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, Brendan, and Johnston, Ron. 1982. Carcinogenic Risk Assessment in the USA and the UK: The Case of Aldrin/Dieldrin. In Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science, ed. Barnes, Barry and Edge, David. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Golay, Michael. 1980. How Prometheus Came to be Bound: Nuclear Regulation in America. Technology Review 83:29–39.Google Scholar
Goodell, Rae. 1977. The Visible Scientists. Boston Little Brown.10.1002/j.2326-1951.1977.tb01494.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodfield, June. 1981. Reflections on Science and the Media. New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
Hartz, Louis. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1981. Post Materialism in an Environment of Insecurity. American Political Science Review 75:880–900.10.2307/1962290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1984. The Fear of Living Dangerously: Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power. Public Opinion 6:41–44.Google Scholar
Institut für Demoskopie. 1985. Kernenergie und Offentlichkeit. Allensbach, West Germany: Institut für Demoskopie.Google Scholar
Ladd, Anthony E., Hood, Thomas C., and Van Liere, Kent D.. 1983. Ideological Themes in the Antinuclear Movement: Consensus and Diversity. Sociological Inquiry 53:252–72.10.1111/j.1475-682X.1983.tb00036.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Everett Carll Jr., and Lipset, Seymour M.. 1975. The Divided Academy. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lichter, Linda, Lichter, S. Robert, and Rothman, Stanley. 1982. The Once and Future Journalists. Washington Journalism Review 4:26–27.Google Scholar
Lichter, Linda, Lichter, S. Robert, and Rothman, Stanley. 1983a. Hollywood and America: The Odd Couple. Public Opinion 5:54–58.Google Scholar
Lichter, Linda, Lichter, S. Robert, and Rothman, Stanley. 1983b. What Interests the Public and What Interests the Public Interests. Public Opinion 6: 44–48.Google Scholar
Lichter, S. Robert, and Rothman, Stanley. 1981. Media and Business Elites. Public Opinion 3: 42–46.Google Scholar
Lichter, S. Robert, and Rothman, Stanley. 1983. Scientists' Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy. Nature 305:91–94.10.1038/305091a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichter, S. Robert, Rothman, Stanley, and Lichter, Linda. 1986. The Media Elite. Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler.Google Scholar
Lichter, S. Robert, Rothman, Stanley, Rycroft, Robert, and Lichter, Linda. Nuclear News. 1986. Washington, DC: Center for Media and Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M. 1977. Why No Socialism in the United States? In Sources of Contemporary Radicalism, ed. Bialer, Seweryn and Sluzar, Sophia. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M. 1982. The Academic Mind at the Top: The Views and Behavior of Faculty Elites. Public Opinion Quarterly 46:143–68.10.1086/268710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M. 1983. Radicalism or Reformism: The Sources of Working Class Politics. American Political Science Review 77:1–18.10.2307/1956008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M., and Schneider, William. 1983. The Confidence Gap. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mazur, Allen. 1981. The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington, DC: Communications Press.Google Scholar
Mazur, Allen. 1986. The Development of Political Values in Management Engineering and Journalism. In Research in Political Sociology, Vol. 2, ed. Braungart, Richard G.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
The Media Institute. 1979. Television Evening News Covers Nuclear Energy. Washington, DC: Media Institute.Google Scholar
Nash, Roderick. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nader, Ralph, and Abbotts, John. 1977. The Menace of Atomic Energy. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Nelkin, Dorothy, and Fallows, Susan. 1978. The Evolution of the Nuclear Debate: The Role of Public Opinion. Annual Review of Energy 3: 275–312.10.1146/annurev.eg.03.110178.001423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, Dorothy, and Pollak, Michael. 1981. The Atom Besieged: Extraparliamentary Dissent in France and Germany. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nisbet, Robert. 1980. The History of the Idea of Progress. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Noelle-Neumann, Elizabeth. 1973. Return of the Concept of a Powerful Mass Media. Studies of Broadcasting 9:67–112.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. Nuclear Power in an Age of Uncertainty. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
Opinion Roundup. 1979. Public Opinion 2:23–24.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., Shapiro, Robert Y., and Dempsey, Glen R.. 1984. Television News and Changes in Americans' Policy Preferences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Perrow, Charles. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Robinson, Michael. 1976. Public Affairs Television and the Growth of Political Malaise. American Political Science Review 70:409–32.10.2307/1959647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, Stanley. 1978. Intellectuals and the American Political System. In Emerging Coalitions in American Society, ed. Lipset, Seymour M.. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.Google Scholar
Rothman, Stanley. 1979. The Mass Media in Post-Industrial Society. In The Third Century: America as a Post-Industrial Society, ed. Lipset, Seymour M.. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, Stanley. 1984. Ideology Authoritarianism and Mental Health. Political Psychology 5: 341-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, Stanley, and Lichter, S. Robert. 1982a. Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rothman, Stanley, and Lichter, S. Robert. 1982b. The Nuclear Energy Debate: Scientists, The Media, and the Public. Public Opinion 4:47–52.Google Scholar
Rothman, Stanley, and Lichter, S. Robert. 1984. What Are Movie Makers Made of? Public Opinion 6:14–18.Google Scholar
Scaminaci, James III, and Dunlap, Riley E.. 1986. No Nukes! A Comparison of Participants in Two National Antinuclear Demonstrations. Sociological Inquiry 56:272–81.10.1111/j.1475-682X.1986.tb00088.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shell, Kurt. 1973. The American Impact on the New Left. In Contagious Conflict, ed. den Hollander, A. N. J.. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Slovic, Paul, Fischhoff, Baruch, and Lichtenstein, Sarah. 1979. Rating the Risks. Environment 21: 14–20.Google Scholar
Snyderman, Mark, and Rothman, Stanley. 1986. Science, Politics, and the I.Q. Controversy. Public Interest 83:79–97.Google Scholar
Upton, Arthur C. 1982. The Biological Effects of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation. Scientific American 246:41–49.10.1038/scientificamerican0282-41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wachtel, Paul. 1983. The Poverty of Affluence. New York: Free Press and MacMillan.Google Scholar
Wade, Nicholas. 1980. France's All-out Nuclear Program Takes Shape. Science 209:884–89.10.1126/science.209.4459.884CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webber, David J. 1982. Is Nuclear Power Just Another Environmental Issue? An Analysis of California Voters. Environment and Behavior 14:72–83.10.1177/0013916582141004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron B. 1980. Richer Is Safer. Public Interest 60:23–29.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron B., and Douglas, Mary. 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Richard, and Crouch, Edmond. 1982. Risk/Benefit Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Bertram. 1982. The Hidden Agenda. In Nuclear Energy: Both Sides, ed. Kaku, Michio and Trainer, Jennifer. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.