IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v33y2024i1d10.1007_s10726-023-09852-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Individual Characteristics and Feedback from Key People on the Decision-Making Process of Group Nuclear Protective Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Baohuan Zhou

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Xiaoli Hu

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Qinglong Tang

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Yundong Xie

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Jiantao Zhu

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

Abstract

In this article we construct and validate a cross-level conceptual model based on emergence theory and psychodynamics with both mediating and moderating effects to explore the influence of individual characteristics (i.e., rational cognitive ability, herd pressure), groupthink, and feedback from key people (i.e., government, expert) on group protective behavioral intentions in the context of Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) situations. We utilize a tracking experiment approach in which we recruited 35 student teams from a university as respondents and surveyed them three times from 2021 to 2022. The hypotheses of the study from the individual level to the group level were tested using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and indirect effects were tested using RMediation. The results suggest that rational cognitive ability has a negative effect on group protective behavioral intentions via groupthink and that herd pressure has a positive effect on group protective behavioral intentions via groupthink. Further, we also found that positive feedback based on government authority played a positive role in moderating the relationship between group-level risk perception and group protective behavioral intentions, while developmental feedback based on expert prestige had a negative moderating effect. This study enriches and improves theoretical studies on nuclear power risk, which provides innovative practical implications for the formation and control of group protective behavioral intentions under the risk of NIMBY.

Suggested Citation

  • Baohuan Zhou & Xiaoli Hu & Qinglong Tang & Yundong Xie & Jiantao Zhu, 2024. "The Influence of Individual Characteristics and Feedback from Key People on the Decision-Making Process of Group Nuclear Protective Behavior," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 7-26, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:33:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09852-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-023-09852-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-023-09852-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-023-09852-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Benjamin Cohen & Hyun Song Shin, 2002. "Positive feedback trading under stress: evidence from the US Treasury securities market," BIS Papers chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Market functioning and central bank policy, volume 12, pages 148-180, Bank for International Settlements.
    3. Jing Zeng & Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dingtao Zhao & Xunguo Lin, 2019. "Residents’ behavioural intentions to resist the nuclear power plants in the vicinity: an application of the protective action decision model," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 382-400, March.
    4. He, Jiaxin & Lin, Boqiang, 2019. "Assessment of waste incineration power with considerations of subsidies and emissions in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 190-199.
    5. Benjamin H Cohen & Hyun Song Shin, 2002. "Positive feedback trading in the US Treasurey market," BIS Quarterly Review, Bank for International Settlements, June.
    6. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    7. Arash Geramian & Ajith Abraham & Mojtaba Ahmadi Nozari, 2019. "Fuzzy logic-based FMEA robust design: a quantitative approach for robustness against groupthink in group/team decision-making," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(5), pages 1331-1344, March.
    8. Naomi Aoki, 2018. "Who Would Be Willing to Accept Disaster Debris in Their Backyard? Investigating the Determinants of Public Attitudes in Post‐Fukushima Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 535-547, March.
    9. Xia, Dongqin & Li, Yazhou & He, Yanling & Zhang, Tingting & Wang, Yongliang & Gu, Jibao, 2019. "Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 208-215.
    10. Hongfeng Qiu & Suwei Weng & Michael Shengtao Wu, 2021. "The mediation of news framing between public trust and nuclear risk reactions in post-Fukushima China: A case study," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 167-182, February.
    11. Annukka Vainio & Riikka Paloniemi & Vilja Varho, 2017. "Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 557-569, March.
    12. Iosif Botetzagias & Chrisovaladis Malesios & Anthi Kolokotroni & Yiannis Moysiadis, 2015. "The role of NIMBY in opposing the siting of wind farms: evidence from Greece," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 229-251, February.
    13. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    14. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    15. Roman Seidl & Corinne Moser & Michael Stauffacher & Pius Krütli, 2013. "Perceived Risk and Benefit of Nuclear Waste Repositories: Four Opinion Clusters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1038-1048, June.
    16. Michael R. Greenberg & George Apostolakis & Timothy Fields & Bernard D. Goldstein & David Kosson & Steven Krahn & R. Bruce Matthews & James Rispoli & Jane Stewart & Richard Stewart, 2019. "Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 375-388, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wang, Fan & Wang, Jing & Gu, Jibao, 2024. "Perceived information quality, trust in government, and local acceptance of nuclear power in China," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2020. "How and when does information publicity affect public acceptance of nuclear energy?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    4. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2019. "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 352-360.
    5. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    6. Zuraidah Sulaiman & Hanis Syuhada Ahmad Sugiran & Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah & Adaviah Mas’od & Suhairul Hashim & David Andrew Bradley, 2022. "Public Awareness of Consumer Products Containing Radioactive Materials: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    8. Ho, Shirley S. & Xiong, Rui & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2021. "Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    9. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    10. Joel Rasmussen & Petter B. Wikström, 2022. "Returning Home after Decontamination? Applying the Protective Action Decision Model to a Nuclear Accident Scenario," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    12. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Khan, Anwar & Min, Jialin & Hassan Shah, Wasi Ul & Li, Qianwen & Sun, Chuanwang, 2024. "Efficacy of CO2 emission reduction strategies by countries pursuing energy efficiency, nuclear power, and renewable electricity," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 300(C).
    14. Qiwen Chen & Hui Liu & Peng Mao & Junjie Qian & Yongtao Tan & Xiaer Xiahou & Peng Cui, 2022. "How Does NIMBYism Influence Residents’ Behavioral Willingness to Dispose of Waste in Centralized Collection Points?—An Empirical Study of Nanjing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-21, November.
    15. Xia Wu & Wei Qi & Xi Hu & Shanshan Zhang & Dingtao Zhao, 2017. "Consumers’ purchase intentions toward products against city smog: exploring the influence of risk information processing," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 88(1), pages 611-632, August.
    16. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    17. Lingyun Mi & Lijie Qiao & Ting Xu & Xiaoli Gan & Hang Yang & Jingjing Zhao & Yaning Qiao & Jiaxin Hou, 2020. "Promoting sustainable development: The impact of differences in cultural values on residents' pro‐environmental behaviors," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1539-1553, November.
    18. Samal Kaliyeva & Francisco Jose Areal & Yiorgos Gadanakis, 2020. "Attitudes of Kazakh Rural Households towards Joining and Creating Cooperatives," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    19. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2023. "Economic value of the development of nuclear power plant decommissioning technology in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. Waqas Riaz & Sehrish Gul & Yoonseock Lee, 2023. "The Influence of Individual Cultural Value Differences on Pro-Environmental Behavior among International Students at Korean Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, March.

    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:spr:grdene:v:33:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09852-y. 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: 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.