Heather Barnes Truelove

Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident?

A survey of 3,200 U.S. residents focused on two issues associated with the use of nuclear and coal fuels to produce electrical energy. The first was the association between risk beliefs and preferences for coal and nuclear energy. As expected, concern about nuclear power plant accidents led to decreased support for nuclear power, and those who believed that coal causes global warming preferred less coal use. Yet other risk beliefs about the coal and nuclear energy fuel cycles were stronger or equal correlates of public preferences. The second issue is the existence of what we call acknowledged risk takers, respondents who favored increased reliance on nuclear energy, although also noting that there could be a serious nuclear plant accident, and those who favored greater coal use, despite acknowledging a link to global warming. The pro-nuclear group disproportionately was affluent educated white males, and the pro-coal group was relatively poor less educated African-American and Latino females. Yet both shared four similarities: older age, trust in management, belief that the energy facilities help the local economy, and individualistic personal values. These findings show that there is no single public with regard to energy preferences and risk beliefs. Rather, there are multiple populations with different viewpoints that surely would benefit by hearing a clear and comprehensive national energy life cycle policy from the national government.

Understanding the Relationship between Christian Orthodoxy and Environmentalism : The Mediating Role of Perceived Environmental Consequences.

The present study evaluated the hypothesis that people who strongly adhere to Christian orthodoxy may be less proenvironmental to the extent that they are less aware of the biospheric consequences of environmental problems (biospheric AC) but that they may be more proenvironmental than others to the extent that they are more aware of the egoistic and social-altruistic consequences of environmental problems (egoistic AC and social-altruistic AC, respectively). College students ( N = 192) completed measures of awareness of negative consequences (AC), Christian orthodoxy, and environmental behavior. Results showed that Christian orthodoxy negatively related to all measures of environmental behavior. Additionally, biospheric AC was a complete mediator in Christian orthodoxy’s relationships with environmental intentions and willingness to pay for environmental protection and was a partial mediator in Christian orthodoxy’s relationship with proenvironmental political behavior. Neither egoistic AC nor social-altruistic AC correlated with Christian orthodoxy, so their mediating properties were not assessed. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Who has become more open to nuclear power because of climate change

Even in the face of the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, nuclear power is being promoted in the U.S. as a necessary response to global climate change. Conducted prior to the Fukushima accident, the present study used a nation-wide telephone survey of 2751 U.S. residents to assess the factors that influence whether a person has become more open to nuclear power because of global climate change rather than supportive or opposed to nuclear power. Results showed that belief that climate change is a risk and is human-caused, belief that nuclear energy contributes to climate change, environmental support, cultural worldviews, and selected socio-demographics consistently predicted openness to nuclear power because of climate change. Implications of the current results and avenues for additional research on this topic are discussed.

Are LULUs still enduringly objectionable

We asked a national sample of 651 US residents about the feelings, emotions, images and colours they associated with nearby waste management, energy, industrial facilities and other big developments commonly regarded as locally unwanted land uses (LULUs). The respondents showed the expected dislike of them, picking ‘bad’, ‘fear’, ‘polluted’, red and black to describe them more than ‘safe’, ‘secure’, ‘jobs’ and other positive descriptors and images. Waste management facilities, especially nuclear ones, had the most negative labels, and coal and gas energy facilities had fewer than anticipated. This survey occurred prior to the events in the Fukushima plant in Japan. However, even before those events LULU concerns endured and nuclear facilities and chemical and metal plants were the most distressing to the public as a whole.

Are Implicit Associations With Nuclear Energy Related to Policy Support? Evidence From the Brief Implicit Association Test

Nuclear energy has long been assumed to elicit automatic, negative reactions. However, little research has investigated implicit associations with nuclear energy. To assess implicit and explicit attitudes toward nuclear energy, 704 U.S. consumer panelists completed a multicategory Implicit Association Test (IAT) and an Internet survey. Results showed that participants held negative implicit attitudes toward nuclear energy (vs. wind and natural gas) and positive implicit attitudes toward nuclear energy (vs. coal). Strong opponents of nuclear policy implicitly preferred natural gas over nuclear and implicitly disliked nuclear as much as coal. Strong supporters of nuclear policy implicitly preferred nuclear over coal, and showed no implicit preference for gas over nuclear. Implicit attitudes toward nuclear energy (vs. gas and wind) were related to policy support when controlling for explicit attitudes and demographics. Understanding both implicit and explicit nuclear attitudes is important for decision makers as the United States charts its energy future.

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: An Experimental Test of Pro-Environmental Spillover From Reducing Meat Consumption to Monetary Donations:

Psychological studies testing behavioral spillover—the notion that behavior change resulting from an intervention affects subsequent similar behaviors—has resulted in conflicting findings in the environmental domain. This study sought to further demarcate the spillover process by asking participants to engage in a difficult first pro-environmental behavior, reducing red meat consumption, for either health or environmental reasons. Evidence of spillover was tested via a subsequent monetary donation to an environmental organization. While there was no evidence of spillover for those in the green behavior condition, those in the health behavior condition were less likely to donate relative to controls. There was evidence that pro-environmental behavior led to an increase in environmental concern. In turn, environmental concern was associated with an increased likelihood of donating. Environmental concern may, thus, be one route to positive spillover in some subsets of the population.

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Preferences for Government Investment in Energy Programs: Support for New Energy Production vs. Energy Conservation

With energy legislation pending in Congress, research is urgently needed on the publics preferences for environmental policies. This study investigated preferences for government investment in new energy production relative to energy conservation and the variables that influence these preferences among members of the general public and those who live near nuclear and/or coal energy facilities (site-specific sample). A survey using random digit dialing assessed preferences for new energy production relative to energy conservation, beliefs about coal and nuclear energy, cultural worldview, trust in nuclear and coal agencies, environmental activism, and demographics among a general public sample (n = 800) and a site-specific sample (n = 2,400). Results showed that fewer than half of the participants desired more than half of the funding to be invested in new energy production relative to energy conservation. The general public samples preferences were driven primarily by beliefs about coal, hierarchical values, environmental concern, and gender. The model of the site-specific samples preferences was more complex and showed that preferences were driven primarily by coal and nuclear beliefs, hierarchical values, environmental concern, age, and race. Overall, the results underline the importance of investigating the underpinnings of beliefs of different groups and being cognizant of the unique factors that influence energy preferences among these groups.