IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v40y2023i1p88-118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political ideology and nuclear energy: Perception, proximity, and trust

Author

Listed:
  • Mark K. McBeth
  • Megan Warnement Wrobel
  • Irene van Woerden

Abstract

Political ideology is an increasingly powerful force in support of public policy. Historically, nuclear energy has found more support among political conservatives. This study updates the literature on political ideology and support for nuclear energy by examining how political ideology is associated with perceptions of nuclear energy and trust of nuclear information sources. After excluding participants with incomplete data, and participants within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor, the analytical sample size for the analysis examining political ideology and perceptions of nuclear energy was 4153. The analytical sample includes a total of 1035 participants within a 50‐mile radius of INL, 710 participants from within Idaho who lived further than 50 miles from INL, 1899 participants from other states (more than 50 miles from a nuclear reactor), and 509 Non‐Idaho participants living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor. Logistic regression was used to determine how political ideology was associated with perceptions of nuclear energy and trust in different sources regarding radioactive waste, after controlling for demographics and location. While liberal participants near INL were less favorable towards nuclear energy, and more trusting in impact scientists to tell the truth about radioactive waste than their conservative counterparts, this was not consistent across the US. Our findings reveal the complexity of political ideology and the perceptions of nuclear issues and how proximity influences perceptions. The perceptions of political moderates were particularly important in providing a more complex understanding of political ideology and nuclear energy issues. 政治意识形态是支持公共政策的日益强大的力量。核能历来在政治保守派中得到更多的支持。本研究通过分析政治意识形态如何与核能感知及核信息源信任相联系,进而对有关政治意识形态和支持核能的文献作贡献。在排除数据不完整的参与者和核反应堆50英里范围内的参与者后,用于分析政治意识形态和核能感知的分析样本量为4153。分析样本包括爱达荷国家实验室(INL)50英里半径范围内的1035名参与者,710名居住在距离INL50英里以外地区的参与者,1899名来自其他州的参与者(居住地点距离核反应堆超过50英里),以及509居住在核反应堆50英里范围内的非爱达荷州参与者。在控制人口统计因素和位置因素后,使用逻辑回归,确定政治意识形态如何与核能感知以及“对关于放射性废物的不同来源的信任”相联系。尽管INL附近的自由派参与者不太支持核能,并且比保守派更相信有影响力的科学家所传播的放射性废物真相,但这并非在美国各地都如此。我们的研究结果揭示了政治意识形态的复杂性、核问题感知、以及邻近性如何影响感知。政治温和派的感知对“提供关于政治意识形态与核问题的更复杂的理解”一事尤为重要。 La ideología política es una fuerza cada vez más poderosa en apoyo de las políticas públicas. Históricamente, la energía nuclear ha encontrado más apoyo entre los conservadores políticos. Este estudio actualiza la literatura sobre ideología política y apoyo a la energía nuclear al examinar cómo la ideología política está asociada con las percepciones de la energía nuclear y la confianza en las fuentes de información nuclear. Después de excluir a los participantes con datos incompletos y los participantes dentro de las 50 millas de un reactor nuclear, el tamaño de la muestra analítica para el análisis que examinó la ideología política y las percepciones de la energía nuclear fue de 4153. La muestra analítica incluye un total de 1035 participantes dentro de un radio de 50 millas de INL, 710 participantes de Idaho que vivían a más de 50 millas de INL, 1899 participantes de otros estados (a más de 50 millas de un reactor nuclear) y 509 Participantes que no sean de Idaho y que vivan a menos de 50 millas de un reactor nuclear. Se utilizó la regresión logística para determinar cómo se asociaba la ideología política con las percepciones de la energía nuclear y la confianza en diferentes fuentes con respecto a los desechos radiactivos, después de controlar la demografía y la ubicación. Si bien los participantes liberales cerca de INL eran menos favorables a la energía nuclear y más confiados en los científicos de impacto para decir la verdad sobre los desechos radiactivos que sus contrapartes conservadoras, esto no fue consistente en los EE. UU. Nuestros hallazgos revelan la complejidad de la ideología política y las percepciones de los problemas nucleares y cómo la proximidad influye en las percepciones. Las percepciones de los políticos moderados fueron particularmente importantes para proporcionar una comprensión más compleja de la ideología política y las cuestiones nucleares.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark K. McBeth & Megan Warnement Wrobel & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "Political ideology and nuclear energy: Perception, proximity, and trust," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 88-118, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:1:p:88-118
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12489
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12489?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark K. McBeth & Ann S. Oakes, 1996. "Citizen Perceptions of Risks Associated with Moving Radiological Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 421-427, June.
    2. Buah, Eric & Linnanen, Lassi & Wu, Huapeng, 2020. "Emotional responses to energy projects: A new method for modeling and prediction beyond self-reported emotion measure," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Rothman, Stanley & Lichter, S. Robert, 1987. "Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(2), pages 383-404, June.
    4. Kuhika Gupta & Joseph T. Ripberger & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva, 2020. "Exploring Aggregate vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 491-510, July.
    5. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    6. Quan Li & Matthew Fuhrmann & Bryan R. Early & Arnold Vedlitz, 2012. "Preferences, Knowledge, and Citizen Probability Assessments of the Terrorism Risk of Nuclear Power," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(2), pages 207-227, March.
    7. Jessica Nihlén Fahlquist & Sabine Roeser, 2015. "Nuclear energy, responsible risk communication and moral emotions: a three level framework," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 333-346, March.
    8. Steven T. Yen & Ernest M. Zampelli, 2021. "Political Ideology, Political Party, and Support for Greater Federal Spending on Environmental Protection in the United States: Evidence from the General Social Surveys, 1993–2018," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 6-30, January.
    9. John C. Besley & Sang‐Hwa Oh, 2014. "The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 949-964, May.
    10. Marc Debus & Jale Tosun, 2021. "Political ideology and vaccination willingness: implications for policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 477-491, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder, 2023. "Policy responses and public reactions to risks," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 6-9, January.
    2. Grace Dehner & Mark K. McBeth & Rae Moss & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "A Zero-Carbon Nuclear Energy Future? Lessons Learned from Perceptions of Climate Change and Nuclear Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-16, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    2. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    3. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    4. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    5. Paul A. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2020. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Working Papers 20-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    6. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    7. Aaron Smith-Walter & Michael D. Jones & Elizabeth A. Shanahan & Holly Peterson, 2020. "The stories groups tell: campaign finance reform and the narrative networks of cultural cognition," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 645-684, April.
    8. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Shapiro, Matthew A., 2020. "Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    10. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Birkelund, Johan & Cherry, Todd L. & McEvoy, David M., 2022. "A culture of cheating: The role of worldviews in preferences for honesty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    14. Linda M. Fogg & Lawrence C. Hamilton & Erin S. Bell, 2020. "Views of the Highway: Infrastructure Reality, Perceptions, and Politics," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    15. Muradian, Roldan & Pascual, Unai, 2020. "Ecological economics in the age of fear," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    16. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    17. Bazzi, Samuel & Fiszbein, Martin & Gebresilasse, Mesay, 2021. "“Rugged individualism” and collective (in)action during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    18. Daniela Salite, 2019. "Explaining the uncertainty: understanding small-scale farmers’ cultural beliefs and reasoning of drought causes in Gaza Province, Southern Mozambique," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(3), pages 427-441, September.
    19. Janice Y. Jung & Barbara A. Mellers, 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.
    20. Kauder, Björn & Potrafke, Niklas & Ursprung, Heinrich, 2018. "Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-41.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:1:p:88-118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.