Not only have I read the article, but there is information from the body of the article in my post that proves it - something you would know if you were capable of actually reading for meaning. Your problem is that you have an extremely low capacity to employ basic valid reasoning - and that, my friend, is the fundamental skill required by anyone who is doing science.
Your OP is a pathetic attempt to hide the very clear results of the research which were accurately summarized in my post.
This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.
2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.
3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power
4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.
5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability
6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.
7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.
8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.
9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.
10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.
The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;
Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.
Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.
1. Colvin J. Dawn of a new era. Nuclear Plant Journal, 2005;
23:42-44.
2. Moore T. License renewal revitalizes the nuclear industry.
EPRI Journal, 2000; 25:8-17.
3. International Atomic Energy Agency. Operational and Under
Construction Reactors by Country. Vienna, Austria: Interna-
tional Atomic Energy Agency, 2005.
4. Uranium Information Center. Nuclear Issue Briefing Pa-
per #16. Melbourne, Australia: Uranium Information Center,
2002.
5. Bisconti AS. Why public opinion about nuclear en-
ergy is changing. Nuclear Energy Review December:
70-72, 2006. Available at:
http://www.business-briefings. com/cdps/cditem.cfm?NID=2402#Public%20Understanding.
6. Rosa EA, Dunlap RE. The polls-poll trends: Nuclear energy:
Three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly,
1994; 58:295-325.
7. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Nuclear energy industry
poised for growth based on excellent performance of today’s
plants. NEI News Release, 2006.
8. Ansolabehere S, Deutch J, Driscoll M, Gray PE, Holdren JP,
Joskow PL, Lester RK, Moniz EJ, Todreas NE. The future
of nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 2003.
9. Sailor WC, Bodansky D, Braun C, Fetter S, Van Der Zwaan B.
Nuclear power: A nuclear solution to climate change? Science,
2005; 288:1177.
10. Bennhold K. Nuclear energy is making a global comeback.
New York Times, October 17, 2004.
11. Wald M. Hopes of building nation’s first new nuclear plant in
decades. New York Times, January 27, 2005.
12. The Economist. A new dawn for nuclear power? Economist,
May, 2001; 19-25.
13. Marshall E. Is the friendly atom poised for a comeback? Sci-
ence, 2005; 309:1168-1169.
14. Rhodes R. Nuclear power’s new day. New York Times, May
7, 2001.
15. Starr C. Societal benefit versus technological risk. Science,
1969; 236:280-285.
16. Freudenburg WF, Rosa EA. Public Reactions to Nuclear
Power: Are There Critical Masses? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press/ American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1984.
17. Wald M. Mississippi extends hospitality to nuclear power. New
York Times, January 27, 2005.
The Future of Nuclear Power 437
18. Morgan D. Restarting reactor could boost nuclear power in-
dustry. Washington Post, May 16, 2002.
19. Rosa EA. The future acceptability of nuclear power in the
United States. Paris: Institute Francais des Relations Interna-
tionales, 2004.
20. Rosa EA. The public climate for nuclear power: The changing
of seasons. In The Role of Nuclear Power in Global and Do-
mestic Energy Policy: Recent Developments and Future Ex-
pectations. Washington, DC: H.H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public
Policy Conference, 2007.
21. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A So-
cial Psychological theory of support for social movements:
The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 1999;
6:81-97.
22. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value orientations, gender and
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 1993;
25:322-348.
23. Schwartz SH. Are there universal aspects in the structure
and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 1994;
50:19-45.
24. Schwartz, SH, Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological
structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1987; 53:550-562.
25. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal
content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural
replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1990; 58:878-891.
26. Dietz T. “What should we do?” Human ecology and collective
decision making. Human Ecology Review, 1994; 1:301-309.
27. Dietz T, Stern PC. Toward realistic models of individual
choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 1995; 24:261-279.
28. Jaeger C, Renn O, Rosa EA, Webler T. Risk, Uncertainty and
Rational Action. London: Earthscan, 2001.
29. Rokeach M. Understanding Human Values: Individual and
Societal. New York: Free Press, 1979.
30. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R. Environmental values. An-
nual Review of Environment and Resources, 2005; 30:335-372.
31. Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs and ecological
risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26:1689-1705.
32. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl H. Communicating about
the risks and benefits of genetically modified food: The me-
diating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:1117-1133.
33. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Nuclear waste and public worries: Public percep-
tions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Human Ecology Review, 2007; 14:1-12.
34. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M,
Mayer H. Preferences for alternative risk management poli-
cies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2007;
50:187-209.
35. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Kasperson JX. Risk, trust and
democratic theory. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds). Social
Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,1999.
36. L ̈ofstedt RE, Rosa EA. The strength of trust in Sweden, UK
and the U.S.: Some hypotheses. Report of the 4th Seminar of
TRUSTNET, Paris, France, 2000.
37. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into
a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich G, L ̈ofstedt RE (eds).
Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan,
1999.
38. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of
trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.
39. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communica-
tion. In Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM (eds). Communicating
Risks to the Public. The Hague: Kluwer, 1991.
40. Rosa EA, Clark DL, Jr. Historical routes to technologi-
cal gridlock: Nuclear technology as prototypical vehicle. Re-
search in Social Problems and Public Policy, 1999; 7:21-
57.
41. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perceptions of hazards: The role of
social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.
42. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Gutscher H. Shared values, social
trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters. Risk
Analysis, 2001; 21:1047-1053.
43. Seigrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity,
social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000;
20:353-362.
44. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Survey-
ing the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19:689-
701.
45. Slovic P, Layman M, Clary BB. Perceived risk, trust and nu-
clear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. In Dunlap RE,
Kraft ME, Rosa EA (eds). Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste:
Citizens’ Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke Uni-
versity Press, 1993.
46. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception,
and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist M, Earle
TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Manage-
ment: Uncertainty and Skepticism in the Public Mind. London:
Earthscan, 2007.
47. Dillman D. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley, 1978.
48. U.S. Census Bureau. Table DP-2 (Profile of Selected So-
cial Characteristics: 2000), Geographical Area: United States,
2000. Available at:
http://factfinder.census.gov/. 49. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of val-
ues: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1992; 25:1-65.
50. Stern PC, Dietz T, Guagnano GA. A brief inventory of values.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1998; 58:884-
1001.
51. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AD, Jones RE. Measuring
endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP
scale. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 56:425-442.
52. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD. The “new environmental
paradigm:” A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary
results. Journal of Environmental Education, 1978; 9:10-19.
53. Peters E, Slovic P. The role of affect and worldviews as orient-
ing dispositions in the perception of nuclear power. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26:1427-1453.
54. Arbuckle JL. Amos 5. Chicago, IL: Smallwater Corporation,
2003.
55. Gallup Poll. Expanding the Use of Nuclear Energy. Princeton,
NJ: Gallup Organization, 2007.
56. Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA. The Public and Nuclear
Waste: Citizen’s Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1993.
57. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14:1101-1108.
58. Kalof L, Dietz T, Guagnano GA, Stern PC. Race, gender
and environmentalism: the atypical values and beliefs of white
men. Race, Gender & Class, 2002; 9:1-19.
59. Mander J. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
New York: William Morrow, 1978.
60. ABC/Time/Stanford University. Concern soars about global
warming as world’s top environmental threat. Department of
Political Science. Stanford, CA: Department of Political Sci-
ence, Stanford University, 2007.
61. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M. Perceived risk, trust and the
politics of nuclear waste. Science, 1993; 254:1603-1607.
62. York R, Rosa E, Dietz T. Bridging environmental science with
environmental policy: Plasticity of population, affluence and
technology. Social Science Quarterly, 2002; 83:18-34.
63. Grewal D, Salovey P. Feeling smart: The science of emotional
intelligence. American Scientist, 2005; 93:330-339.