IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i18p5774-d634645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Psychological Distance on Judging Satisfaction with Nuclear Energy Policy via Knowledge Calibration and an Integrated Causal Path Model

Author

Listed:
  • Byoung Joon Kim

    (Department of Public Administration, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Korea)

  • Seoyong Kim

    (Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

Abstract

This study investigated how, through knowledge calibration and a causal path model, psychological distance can explain the level of satisfaction with nuclear energy policy. The investigation used multiple regression analysis and path analysis to explore relationships among variables. Data from 1056 adults revealed that more knowledge-calibrated individuals have more positive attitudes toward nuclear energy policy. In addition, the psychological distance influences policy satisfaction by mediation of perceived risk of nuclear energy. This study aimed to increase the understanding of the dynamic of satisfaction with and acceptance of nuclear energy policy among stakeholders. Thus, based on the construal level theory, the study addressed the importance of knowledge and psychological distance in explaining variation in satisfaction and acceptance about nuclear policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "The Impact of Psychological Distance on Judging Satisfaction with Nuclear Energy Policy via Knowledge Calibration and an Integrated Causal Path Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-11, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:18:p:5774-:d:634645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/18/5774/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/18/5774/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    2. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 2000. "Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 123-156, September.
    3. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    4. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    5. Lusk, Jayson L., 2004. "United States and European Consumer Demand for Genetically Modified Food in an Experimental Market," Purdue Agricultural Economics Report 188880, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    6. Haoran Chu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 758-770, April.
    7. Gregg G. Van Ryzin, 2004. "Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban services," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 433-448.
    8. Darke, Peter R. & Brady, Michael K. & Benedicktus, Ray L. & Wilson, Andrew E., 2016. "Feeling Close From Afar: The Role of Psychological Distance in Offsetting Distrust in Unfamiliar Online Retailers," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 287-299.
    9. Berger, Ida E. & Ratchford, Brian T. & Haines, George Jr., 1994. "Subjective product knowledge as a moderator of the relationship between attitudes and purchase intentions for a durable product," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 301-314, June.
    10. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt‐Marie Drottz‐Sjöberg, 1991. "Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 607-618, December.
    11. House, Lisa & Lusk, Jayson L. & Jaeger, Sara & Traill, W. Bruce & Moore, Melissa & Valli, Carlotta & Morrow, Bert & Yee, Wallace M.S., 2004. "Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20125, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    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. Jie Yang & Jie Wang & Xiaofeng Zhang & Chunqi Shen & Zhijuan Shao, 2022. "How Social Impressions Affect Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy: A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.

    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. Omid M. Ghoochani & Mansour Ghanian & Masoud Baradaran & Erfan Alimirzaei & Hossein Azadi, 2018. "Behavioral intentions toward genetically modified crops in Southwest Iran: a multi-stakeholder analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 233-253, February.
    2. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    3. Hyun Joung Jin & Dae Hee Han, 2019. "College Students’ Experience of a Food Safety Class and Their Responses to the MSG Issue," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Donoghue, Suné & Wilken-Jonker, Ina & Steffens, Francois E. & Kirsten, Johann F., 2021. "South African consumers' willingness to pay a premium for Karoo Lamb: The influence of subjective and objective knowledge, label information and demographics," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Theresa A. K. Knoblauch & Michael Stauffacher & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2018. "Communicating Low‐Probability High‐Consequence Risk, Uncertainty and Expert Confidence: Induced Seismicity of Deep Geothermal Energy and Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 694-709, April.
    7. Mark Avis & Roman Konopka & Diana Gregory-Smith & Nitha Palakshappa, 2022. "Disentangling Consumers’ CSR Knowledge Types and Effects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    9. Damien Rousselière & Samira Rousselière, 2010. "On the impact of trust on consumer willingness to purchase GM food:Evidence from a European survey," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(1), pages 5-26.
    10. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    11. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    12. Linda Ferrari, 2022. "Farmers' attitude toward CRISPR/Cas9: The case of blast resistant rice," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 175-194, January.
    13. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    14. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    15. Magdi Du Preez & Daleen Van der Merwe & Louise Wyma & Susanna Maria Ellis, 2021. "Assessing Knowledge and Use Practices of Plastic Food Packaging among Young Adults in South Africa: Concerns about Chemicals and Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-19, October.
    16. Min-Seong Kim & Jinwon Kim & Brijesh Thapa, 2018. "Influence of Environmental Knowledge on Affect, Nature Affiliation and Pro-Environmental Behaviors among Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, August.
    17. Zijian Harrison Gong & Haoran Chu, 2022. "Seeing Risks or Solutions: Psychological Distance and Ecological Worldview Moderated the Effect of Disgust Images on Attention to Environmental Messages," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.
    18. Xie, Jing & Hyeyoung, Kim & House, Lisa, 2014. "Valuing Information on GM Foods in the presence of Country-of-Origin Labels," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, February.
    19. Mohamed Didi Alaoui & Véronique Cova, 2021. "La distance psychologique comme outil actionnable par les managers," Post-Print hal-03126709, HAL.
    20. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.

    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:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:18:p:5774-:d:634645. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.