Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:12:39.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facing a Crisis with Calmness? The Global Response to the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2012

YUICHI KUBOTA
YUICHI KUBOTA*
Affiliation:
State University of New York at [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Literature expects that an attitude toward nuclear power is in direct proportion to the perceived risk of accidents at an operational nuclear power plant; that is, the oppositional attitude is based on the view that nuclear technology is risky and support for nuclear power is related to a perceived low risk and/or potential benefit. However, it is misleading to assume that individuals’ risk perception alone can linearly explain their position after such an accident. The association between risk perception and attitude toward nuclear power varies significantly according to country but, until now, has been largely unexamined. This article takes into consideration the effects of structural factors on that relationship by examining public attitudes toward nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011 and reveals that the need for the efficient production of electricity (i.e., nuclear energy) outweighs concern for the potential danger of a nuclear incident. Although a country's dependence on nuclear power for the production of electricity engenders anti-nuclear attitudes, it is evident that a level of economic development largely alleviates any negativity relative to that energy source.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 441 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Ansolabehere, Stephen and Konisky, David M. (2009), ‘Public Attitudes toward Construction of Power Plants’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 73 (3): 566–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodenhausen, Galen V., Sheppard, Lori A., and Kramer, Geoffrey P. (1994), ‘Negative Affect and Social Judgment: The Differential Impact of Anger and Sadness’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 24 (1): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby and Cook, Fay Lomax (2008), ‘The Polls-Trends: Public Opinion on Energy Policy: 1974–2006’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72 (2): 364–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Charles J. (1984), ‘Differences by Sex in Support for Nuclear Power’, Social Forces, 63 (1): 209–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryk, Anthony S. and Raudenbush, Stephen W. (1992), Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data-Analysis Methods, Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
de Boer, Connie and Catsburg, Ineke (1988), ‘The Polls – a Report: The Impact of Nuclear Accidents on Attitudes towards Nuclear Energy’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 52 (2): 254–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DelSesto, Steven (1980), ‘Conflicting Ideologies of Nuclear Power: Congressional Testimony on Nuclear Reactor Safety’, Public Policy, 28 (1): 39–70.Google Scholar
Doty, Richard M., Peterson, Bill E., and Winter, David G. (1991), ‘Threat and Authoritarianism in the United States, 1978–1987’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (4): 629–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drottz-Sjöberg, Britt-Marie and Sjöberg, Lennart (1990), ‘Risk Perception and Worries after the Chernobyl Accident’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10 (2): 135–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiser, J. Richard, Spears, Russell, and Webley, Paul (1989), ‘Nuclear Attitudes before and after Chernobyl: Change and Judgment’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19 (8): 689–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiser, J. Richard and derPligt, Joop van (1979), ‘Beliefs and Values in the Nuclear Debate’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9 (6): 524–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firebaugh, Morris W. (1981), ‘Public Attitudes and Information on the Nuclear Option’, Nuclear Safety, 22 (2): 147–56.Google Scholar
Fishbein, Martin (1963), ‘An Investigation of the Relationship between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude toward that Object’, Human Relations, 16 (3): 233–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, Martin and Hunter, Ronda (1964), ‘Summation versus Balance in Attitude Organization and Change’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69 (5): 505–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, Brian J. and Neeley, Grant W. (2000), ‘Perceived Risk and Citizen Preferences for Governmental Management of Routine Hazards’, Policy Studies Journal, 33 (3): 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gofman, John W. and Tamplin, Arthur R. (1971), Poisoned Power: The Case against Nuclear Power Plants, Emmaus: Rodale Press.Google Scholar
Hohenemser, Christoph and Renn, Ortwin (1988), ‘Chernobyl's Other Legacy: Shifting Public Perceptions of Nuclear Risk’, Environment, 30 (3): 4–11, 40–5.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Feldman, Stanley, Lahav, Gallya, and Taber, Charles (2003), ‘Fear and Terrorism: Psychological Reactions to 9/11’, in Norris, Pippa, Kern, Montague, and Just, Marion (eds.), Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public, New York: Routledge, pp. 255–78.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Khatib, Nadia, and Capelos, Theresa (2002), ‘The Polls-Trends: Reactions to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 66 (3): 418–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughey, Joseph B., Sundstrom, Eric, and Lounsbury, John W. (1985), ‘Attitudes toward Nuclear Power: A Longitudinal Analysis of Expectancy-value Models’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6 (1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Renée and Scicchitano, Michael J. (2000), ‘Uncertainty, Risk, Trust, and Information: Public Perceptions of Environmental Issues and Willingness to Take Action’, Policy Studies Journal, 28 (3): 633–47.CrossRefGoogle 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 (2–3): 252–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindell, Michael K. and Perry, Ronald W. (1990), ‘Effects of the Chernobyl Accident on Public Perceptions of Nuclear Plant Accident Risks’, Risk Analysis, 10 (3): 393–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manzur, Allan (1975), ‘Opposition to Technological Innovation’, Minerva, 13 (1): 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzur, Allan (1981), The Dynamics of Technical Controversy, Washington, DC: Communications Press.Google Scholar
Manzur, Allan (1984), ‘Media Influences on Public Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power’, in Freudenburg, William R. and Rosa, Eugene A. (eds.), Public Reactions to Nuclear Power: Are There Critical Masses?, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. Cameron (1984), ‘Rationality and Irrationality in the Public's Perception of Nuclear Power’, in Freudeburg, William R. and Rosa, Eugene A. (eds.), Nuclear Power and the Public, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 137–79.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana (1998), Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otway, Harry J. and Fishbein, Martin (1976), The Determinants of Attitude Formation: An Application to Nuclear Power, Luxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.Google Scholar
Otway, Harry J., Maurer, Dagmar, and Thomas, Kerry (1978), ‘Nuclear Power: The Question of Public Acceptance’, Futures, 10 (2): 109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passino, Emily M. and Lounsbury, John W. (1976), ‘Sex Differences in Opposition to and Support for Construction of a Proposed Nuclear Power Plant’, in Ward, Lawrence M., Coren, Stanley, Gruft, Andrew, and Collins, John B. (eds.), The Behavioral Basis of Design, Book 1: Selected Papers, Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, pp.1–5.Google Scholar
Poortinga, Wouter and Pidgeon, Nick F. (2003), Public Perceptions of Risk, Science and Governance: Main Findings of a UEA/MORI British Survey on Five Risk Cases, Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk.Google Scholar
Portney, Kent E. (1991), Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities, New York: Auburn House.Google Scholar
Rankin, William L., Melber, Barbara D., Overcast, Thomas D., and Nealey, Stanley M. (1981), Nuclear Power and the Public: An Update of Collected Survey Research on Nuclear Power, Seattle: Battelle Memorial Institute Human Affairs Research Centers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, John H. and Wilkes, John M. (1980), ‘Sex and Attitudes toward Nuclear Power’, paper presented the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Renn, Ortwin (1990), ‘Public Responses to the Chernobyl Accident’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10 (2): 151–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, Eugene A. and Dunlap, Riley E. (1994), ‘The Polls-Poll Trends: Nuclear Power: Three Decades of Public Opinion’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 58 (2): 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaminaci, James III and Dunlap, Riley E. (1986), ‘No Nukes! A Comparison of Participants in Two Antinuclear Demonstrations’, Sociological Inquiry, 56 (2): 272–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, Paul., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., Poumadere, M., and Mays, C. (2000), ‘Nuclear Power and the Public: A Comparative Study of Risk Perception in France and the United States’, in Renn, Ortwin and Rohrmann, Bernd (eds.), Cross-Cultural Risk Perception, Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp. 55–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjöberg, Lennart and Engelberg, Elisabeth (2010), ‘Risk Perception and Movies: A Study of Availability as a Factor in Risk Perception’, Risk Analysis, 30 (1): 95–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorrentino, Richard M. and Vidmar, Neil (1974), ‘Impact of Events: Short- vs Long-Term Effects of a Crisis’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 38 (2): 271–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundstrom, Eric, Lounsbury, John W., DeVault, R. C., and Peele, E. (1981), ‘Acceptance of a Nuclear Power Plant: Applications of the Expectancy-Value Model’, in Baum, Andrew and Singer, Jerome E. (eds.), Advances in Environmental Psychology (Vol. 3), Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 171–89.Google Scholar
Sundstrom, Eric, Lounsbury, John W., Schuller, C. R., Fowler, J. R., and Mattingly, T. J. Jr. (1977), ‘Community Attitudes towards a Proposed Nuclear Power Generating Facility as a Function of Expected Outcomes’, Journal of Community Psychology, 5 (3): 199–208.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Yutaka (2004), ‘Major Psychological Factors Determining Public Acceptance of the Siting of Nuclear Facilities’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34 (6): 1147–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Brug, Wouter (2001), ‘Perceptions, Opinions, and Party Preferences in the Face of a Real-World Event: Chernobyl as a Natural Experiment in Political Psychology’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 13 (1): 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Pligt, Joop., Linden, Joop van der, and Ester, Peter (1982), ‘Attitudes to Nuclear Energy: Beliefs, Values and False Consensus’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2 (3): 221–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verplanken, Bas (1989), ‘Beliefs, Attitudes, and Intentions toward Nuclear Energy before and after Chernobyl in a Longitudinal Within-Subjects Design’, Environment and Behavior, 21 (4): 371–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verplanken, Bas (1991), ‘Public Reactions to the Chernobyl Accident: A Case of Rationality?’, Organization and Environment, 5 (4): 253–69.Google Scholar
WIN-Gallup International (2011a), ‘Impact of Japan Earthquake on Views about Nuclear Energy: Findings from a Global Snap Poll in 47 Countries by WIN-Gallup International’, Recommended Press Release.Google Scholar
WIN-Gallup International (2011b), Global Barometer of View on Nuclear Energy after Japan Earthquake: Volume 1: Tabular Presentation of All 8 Questions Country-wise.Google Scholar
Woo, Tae O. and Castore, Carl H. (1980), ‘Expectancy-value and Selective Exposure as Determinants of Attitudes toward a Nuclear Power Plant’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10 (3): 224–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zetterberg, Hans (1980), The Swedish Public and Nuclear Energy: The Referendum 1980, Vallingby: Svenska lnstitutet foer Opinionsundersoekningar.Google Scholar