The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy
Open accessAbstract
We examined how personal values and perceptions of risks and benefits are associated with the acceptability of nuclear energy (NE). A theoretical model is tested in which beliefs about the risks and benefits of NE mediate the relationship between values and acceptability. The results showed that egoistic values are positively related to the perceived benefits and acceptability of NE. In contrast, altruistic and biospheric values were positively related to the perceived risks of NE. Although it has been argued that NE may help to combat climate change through lower CO 2 emissions, these environmental benefits were not acknowledged by people with strong biospheric values. Furthermore, results confirmed that the more risks respondents perceived, the less they were inclined to accept NE. In contrast, the more a person believed that NE has beneficial consequences, the more acceptable NE was. Finally, as expected, perceived risks and benefits were found to partly mediate the relationship between personal values and acceptability. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
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
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior
Stern, P. C. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175 · Cited by 8,682
The Advantages of an Inclusive Definition of Attitude
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.582 · Cited by 1,258
Cited by
Pehl, M., Arvesen, A., Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Hertwich, E. G., & Luderer, G. (2017) · Nature Energy · doi:10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9 · Cited by 531
Understanding the human dimensions of a sustainable energy transition
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., & van der Werff, E. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805 · Cited by 487
Self-citationValues, Norms, and Intrinsic Motivation to Act Proenvironmentally
Steg, L. (2016) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085947 · Cited by 440
Self-citationSteg, L. (2023) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-032720-042905 · Cited by 265
Self-citationArning, K., Offermann-van Heek, J., Linzenich, A., Kaetelhoen, A., Sternberg, A., Bardow, A., & Ziefle, M. (2019) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.039 · Cited by 165
Metadata
- Authors
- de Groot, J. I. M., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-05-29
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 307-317
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W1487098497
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 31.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01845.x
- The paper
- de Groot, J. I. M., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01845.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.