The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
Babbie, E., & Dillman, D. A. (1982) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2068433 · Cited by 6,852
Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values?
Schwartz, S. H. (1994) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x · Cited by 5,793
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 · Cited by 5,678
Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
Osmond, M. W., & Dillman, D. A. (1979) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2577403 · Cited by 5,023
(1999) · Western CEDAR (Western Washington University) · Cited by 3,944
Toward a universal psychological structure of human values.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.3.550 · Cited by 3,790
The “new environmental paradigm”
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978) · The Journal of Environmental Education · doi:10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875 · Cited by 2,833
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.58.5.878 · Cited by 2,337
Cited by
Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies
(2015) · Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415416.008 · Cited by 391
Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes
Corner, A., Venables, D., Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Demski, C., & Pidgeon, N. (2011) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.037 · Cited by 351
I’ll see it when i believe it: motivated numeracy in perceptions of climate change risk
Nurse, M. S., & Grant, W. J. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1618364 · Cited by 83
Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion
Abdulla, A., Vaishnav, P., Sergi, B., & Victor, D. G. (2019) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.039 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-02-13
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 425-437
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W1982711940
- Cited by
- 314
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 49.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x
- The paper
- Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.