Advertisement

Nuclear Power and the Public

A Comparative Study of Risk Perception in France and the United States
  • Paul Slovic
  • James Flynn
  • C. K. Mertz
  • Marc Poumadère
  • Claire Mays
Chapter
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 13)

Summary

This study is an attempt to understand attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors with respect to nuclear power and several other technological risk sources. A unique feature of the study is a comparison between public views in the United States, where nuclear energy is resisted, and France, where nuclear energy appears to be embraced (France obtains about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power).

Although the experiences of France and the U.S. with regard to nuclear energy overlap during the post World War II decades, there are a number of significant differences in timing, motivation toward adopting nuclear power, the economic context, the cultural and political milieu, regulation, and financing of the industry. We would expect these conditions to be associated with significant differences between French and American attitudes and opinions about nuclear power and related issues.

We have used the same survey, between public views in the United States and public views in France. We found, to our surprise, that concerns about nuclear power and nuclear waste as measured by the survey were high in France and were at least as great there as in the U.S. Thus, even though perception of risk is a strong predictor of attitudes toward nuclear power within both the U.S. and France, it cannot account for the different level of reliance on nuclear energy in the two countries. Further analysis of the survey data uncovered a number of differences that might be central in explaining the difference between France and the U.S. Specifically, the French:
  • saw greater need for nuclear power and greater economic benefit from it;

  • had greater trust in scientists, industry, and government officials who design, build, operate, and regulate nuclear power plants;

  • were more likely to believe that decision-making authority should reside with the experts and government authorities, rather than with the people.

These findings point to some important differences between the workings of democracy in the U.S. and France and the effects of different “democratic models” on acceptance of risks from technology.

Keywords

Nuclear Power Plant Risk Perception Nuclear Waste Motor Vehicle Accident Ozone Depletion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barthe, Y. & Mays, C. (1998). High profile and deep strategy: Communication and information practices in France’s underground laboratory siting process. Riskpercom national case study on communication and radioactive waste management. Note technique SEGR 98–18. Fontenay-aux-Roses: IPSN.Google Scholar
  2. Batt, T. (1992, July 23). Nevada claims victory in Yucca deal. Las Vegas Review-Journal, pp. 1A - 3A.Google Scholar
  3. Bord, R. J. (1988). The low-level radioactive waste crisis: Is more citizen participation the answer? In M. A. Burns (Ed.), Low-level radioactive waste regulation: Science, politics, and fear (pp. 193–213 ). Chelsea, MI: Lewis.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M., Craik, K. H., & Dake, K. M. (1986). Contemporary worldviews and perception of the technological system. In V. T. Covello, J. Menkes & J. Mumpower (Eds.), Risk evaluation and management (pp. 93–130 ). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. L. (1988). Collapse of an industry: Nuclear power and the contradictions of U.S. policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  6. Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drottz-Sjöberg, B. M. (1993). Risk perceptions related to varied frames of reference. In P. Hubert & M. Poumadere (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Conference of Society for Risk Analysis Europe. Paris: European Section of the Society for Risk Analysis, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. Flynn, J., Kasperson, R., Kunreuther, H., & Slovic, R ( 1992, Summer) Time to rethink nuclear waste storage. Issues in Science and Technology, 8(4), 42–48.Google Scholar
  9. Flynn, J., Slovic, R, & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.Google Scholar
  10. Freud, S. (1924). Collected papers. London: Hogarth.Google Scholar
  11. Galton, F. (1880). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jasper, J. M. (1990). Nuclear politics: Energy and the state in the United States, Sweden, and France. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Nuclear imagery and regional stigma: Testing hypotheses of image acquisition and valuation regarding Nevada [Technical report]. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico, Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  14. Kasperson, R., Golding, D., & Tuler, S. ( 1992, Winter). Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks (Individual and collective responses to risk). Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 161–188.Google Scholar
  15. Kunreuther, H., Fitzgerald, K., & Aarts, T. D. (1993). Siting noxious facilities: A test of the facility siting credo. Risk Analysis, 13, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mays, C. & Egouy, R. (1998). Mission Communication: Press office and related activities at France ‘s Institute for Nuclear Safety and Protection (IPSN). Riskpercom crossnational case study on institutional risk communication. Note technique SEGR 98–19. Fontenay-aux-Roses: IPSN.Google Scholar
  17. Mays, C. & Poumadère, M. (1996). Uncertain communication: Institutional discourse in nuclear waste repository siting. In V. Sublet, V. Covello and T. Tinker (eds.), Scientific uncertainty and its influence on the public communication process. Amsterdam: NATO Advanced Scientific Workshop Series, Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mays, C., Marris, C., Bonnefous, S. & Brenot, J. (1997). Perceptions of risk in France in 1996: Before, during and after Chernobyl ‘s tenth anniversary. Report to the European Commission DG 12. Note technique SEGR 97–93. Fontenay-aux-Roses: IPSN.Google Scholar
  19. Mays, C., Richard, V., Bonnefous, S. & Marris, C. (1998). Risk reporting in the French print media at Chernobyl ‘s tenth anniversary. Note technique SEGR 98–50. Fontenay-aux-Roses: IPSN.Google Scholar
  20. Morone, J. F., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1989). The demise of nuclear energy? Lessons for a democratic control of technology. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nelkin, D., & Pollak, M. ( 1979, August/September). Public participation in technological decisions: Reality or grand illusion? Technology Review, pp. 55–64.Google Scholar
  23. Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26 (16), 1427–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poumadère, M. (1991). “The credibility crisis”, in B. Segerstahl (ed.) Chernobyl: A Policy Response Study, Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Poumadère, M. (1995). Cultural factors in public acceptance of nuclear power, in Uranium and nuclear energy: 1995, Proceedings of the 20th international symposium of the Uranium Institute, London, 20–21 Sept.Google Scholar
  26. Poumadère, M. and Mays, C. (1997). Energy Risk Regulation in France. Working Paper Nr. 89 of the Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Würrtemberg. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung.Google Scholar
  27. Poumadère, M., C. Mays, P. Slovic, J. Flynn & S. Johnson (1994). What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option, Proceedings of the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting on The Nuclear Power Option, 5–8 Sept., Vienna.Google Scholar
  28. Poumadère, M., Mays, C., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C.K. (1996). Diversity in meaning: risks compared in France and the USA. In O. Renn (ed.), Risk Analysis and Management in a Global Economy; Vol. 2 Risk Perception and Communication in Europe. Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg.Google Scholar
  29. Slovic, R (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slovic, P. (1990). Perception of risk from radiation. In W. K. Sinclair (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Vol. 11: Radiation protection today: The NCRP at sixty years (pp. 73–97 ). Bethesda, MD: NCRP.Google Scholar
  31. Slovic, P., Flynn, J., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., & Mullican, L. (1993). Health risk perception in Canada [Report No. 93-EHD-170]. Ottawa: Department of National Health and. Welfare.Google Scholar
  33. Slovic, P., Kraus, N. N., Lappe, H., Letzel, H., & Malmfors, T. (1989). Risk perception of prescription drugs: Report on a survey in Sweden. Pharmaceutical Medicine, 4, 43–65.Google Scholar
  34. Slovic, R, Layman, M., & Flynn, J. (1991). Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment, 33, 6–11, 28–30.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, K. (1988). Perception of risks associated with nuclear power. Energy Environment Monitor, 4 (1), 61–70.Google Scholar
  36. Wundt, W. (1883). Über Psychologische Methoden. Philosophische Studien, 1, 1–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Slovic
    • 1
  • James Flynn
    • 1
  • C. K. Mertz
    • 1
  • Marc Poumadère
    • 2
  • Claire Mays
    • 3
  1. 1.Decision ResearchEugeneUSA
  2. 2.Ecole Normale SupérieureCachanFrance
  3. 3.Institut SymlogCachanFrance

Personalised recommendations