IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v3y1990i4p331-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Communication and Attitude Change: Taiwan's National Debate over Nuclear Power

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Jin-Tan
  • Smith, V Kerry

Abstract

This article reports the first analysis of the effects of a national risk-communication program that disseminated the facts about the risks associated with nuclear power plants. It relies upon a unique set of circumstances in Taiwan. The state-operated power corporation sponsored a national debate in an effort to promote greater public consensus on the need for a fourth nuclear power plant. This analysis uses stated risk perceptions and attitudes toward the plant to evaluate the effect of the debate. The results are based on a panel of households interviewed before and after the debate. They suggest that the debate did not reduce respondents' perceived risks from nuclear power and had little perceptible effect on the attitude changes of our sample. The only systematic influences detected on the observed attitude changes imply that respondents reacted counter to the debate's objectives, and thus the debate seems likely to continue to erode support for the new plant.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Jin-Tan & Smith, V Kerry, 1990. "Risk Communication and Attitude Change: Taiwan's National Debate over Nuclear Power," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 331-349, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:3:y:1990:i:4:p:331-49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 1993. "“The Mental Model” Meets “The Planning Process”: Wrestling with Risk Communication Research and Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-8, February.
    3. Hsieh, Chee-Ruey & Yen, Lee-Lan & Liu, Jin-Tan & Chyongchiou Jeng Lin, 1996. "Smoking, health knowledge, and anti-smoking campaigns: An empirical study in Taiwan," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 87-104, February.
    4. Halstead, John M. & Luloff, A.E. & Stevens, Thomas H., 1992. "Protest Bidders In Contingent Valuation," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 21(2), pages 1-10, October.
    5. William R. Freudenburg & Julie A. Rursch, 1994. "The Risks of “Putting the Numbers in Context”: A Cautionary Tale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 949-958, December.
    6. Jan M. Gutteling & MargÔt Kuttschreuter, 2002. "The role of expertise in risk communication: laypeople's and expert's perception of the millennium bug risk in The Netherlands," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 35-47, January.
    7. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    8. George O. Rogers, 1997. "The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 745-757, December.

    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:kap:jrisku:v:3:y:1990:i:4:p:331-49. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.