IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i12p2305-2320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Takashi Kusumi
  • Rumi Hirayama
  • Yoshihisa Kashima

Abstract

Individuals’ perceptions and their interpersonal communication about a risk event, or risk talk, can play a significant role in the formation of societal responses to the risk event. As they formulate their risk opinions and speak to others, risk information can circulate through their social networks and contribute to the construction of their risk information environment. In the present study, Japanese citizens’ risk perception and risk talk were examined in the context of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear radiation risk. We hypothesized and found that the risk information environment and risk literacy (i.e., competencies to understand and use risk information) interact to influence their risk perception and risk talk. In particular, risk literacy tends to stabilize people's risk perceptions and their risk communications. Nevertheless, there were some subtle differences between risk perception and communication, suggesting the importance of further examination of interpersonal risk communication and its role in the societal responses to risk events.

Suggested Citation

  • Takashi Kusumi & Rumi Hirayama & Yoshihisa Kashima, 2017. "Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2305-2320, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:12:p:2305-2320
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12784
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12784
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12784?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. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    2. Smithson, Michael, 1999. "Conflict Aversion: Preference for Ambiguity vs Conflict in Sources and Evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 179-198, September.
    3. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    4. Andrew R. Binder & Dietram A. Scheufele & Dominique Brossard & Albert C. Gunther, 2011. "Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 324-334, February.
    5. William J. Burns & Paul Slovic & Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Srinivas Emani, 1993. "Incorporating Structural Models into Research on the Social Amplification of Risk: Implications for Theory Construction and Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 611-623, December.
    6. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2001. "Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 199-206, February.
    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. Yuyao Feng & Guowen Li & Xiaolei Sun & Jianping Li, 2022. "Identification of tourists’ dynamic risk perception—the situation in Tibet," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Daisuke Nakanishi & Kunihiro Yokota & Junichi Igawa, 2023. "Can scientific literacy reduce purchase avoidance of Fukushima products?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 242-250, June.

    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. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    2. J. A. Giesecke & W. J. Burns & A. Barrett & E. Bayrak & A. Rose & P. Slovic & M. Suher, 2012. "Assessment of the Regional Economic Impacts of Catastrophic Events: CGE Analysis of Resource Loss and Behavioral Effects of an RDD Attack Scenario," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 583-600, April.
    3. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    4. Marcelo Firpo de Souza Porto & Carlos Machado de Freitas, 1996. "Major Chemical Accidents in Industrializing Countries: The Socio‐Political Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 19-29, February.
    5. Timothy McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 575-588, October.
    6. Yixin Chen & Xinchuan Liu, 2021. "How Do Environmental News and the Under the Dome Documentary Influence Air-Pollution Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Beijing Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    7. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    8. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    9. William C. Metz, 1996. "Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 185-193, April.
    10. Cordoves-Sánchez, Minerva & Vallejos-Romero, Arturo, 2019. "Social construction of risk in non-conventional renewable energy: Risk perception as a function of ecosystem services in La Araucanía, Chile," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 261-270.
    11. Jedynak Piotr & Bąk Sylwia, 2020. "Understanding Uncertainty and Risk in Management," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 12-35, March.
    12. Dingde Xu & Linmei Zhuang & Xin Deng & Cheng Qing & Zhuolin Yong, 2020. "Media Exposure, Disaster Experience, and Risk Perception of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence from Rural China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, May.
    13. Mathew P. White & Sabine Pahl & Marc Buehner & Andres Haye, 2003. "Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 717-726, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Vivianne H. M. Visschers, 2018. "Public Perception of Uncertainties Within Climate Change Science," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 43-55, January.
    16. Andrew R. Binder & Elliott D. Hillback & Dominique Brossard, 2016. "Conflict or Caveats? Effects of Media Portrayals of Scientific Uncertainty on Audience Perceptions of New Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 831-846, April.
    17. Deepa Anagondahalli & Monique Mitchell Turner, 2012. "Predicting Psychological Ripple Effects: The Role of Cultural Identity, In‐Group/Out‐Group Identification, and Attributions of Blame in Crisis Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 695-712, April.
    18. Jia, Ling & Qian, Queena K. & Meijer, Frits & Visscher, Henk, 2021. "How information stimulates homeowners’ cooperation in residential building energy retrofits in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    19. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    20. Stotz, Tamara & Bearth, Angela & Ghelfi, Signe Maria & Siegrist, Michael, 2022. "The perceived costs and benefits that drive the acceptability of risk-based security screenings at airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:12:p:2305-2320. 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://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.