본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Confirmation bias, information selection, and belief reinforcement about the safety/risk of nuclear spent fuel storage facilities

최영록|이대윤|Kim Woo J.
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)|2024.12|Nuclear Engineering and Technology|제56권 제12호|pp. 4975-4982|DOI 10.1016/j.net.2024.07.006

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

South KoreaTrust in governmentConfirmation biasNuclear spent fuel storage facilityBelief about riskNuclear waste management
주제분류원자력공학

초록

This study investigates the phenomenon of confirmation bias in information selection in the context of nuclear spent fuel (NSF) storage facilities. An online survey was administered to a sample of 321 residents in South Korea. They were asked to assess their beliefs about the safety/risk of NSF storage facilities before and after their exposure to additional information. Our findings show a positive association between the initial belief and confirmation bias, suggesting that the research participants tend to select articles consistent with their beliefs about the safety/risk of the facility. Trust in government is negatively related to confirmation bias, implying that residents with a greater level of trust in government are more likely to choose information opposing their initial beliefs. Finally, this study finds the self-reinforcing and potentially polarizing nature of individuals’ beliefs about the safety/risk of NSF storage facilities as residents’ initial beliefs are reinforced rather than challenged after they reviewed self-selected articles. Implications for public policy and communication strategies related to improving the acceptance of NSF storage facilities are discussed.

Abstract

This study investigates the phenomenon of confirmation bias in information selection in the context of nuclear spent fuel (NSF) storage facilities. An online survey was administered to a sample of 321 residents in South Korea. They were asked to assess their beliefs about the safety/risk of NSF storage facilities before and after their exposure to additional information. Our findings show a positive association between the initial belief and confirmation bias, suggesting that the research participants tend to select articles consistent with their beliefs about the safety/risk of the facility. Trust in government is negatively related to confirmation bias, implying that residents with a greater level of trust in government are more likely to choose information opposing their initial beliefs. Finally, this study finds the self-reinforcing and potentially polarizing nature of individuals’ beliefs about the safety/risk of NSF storage facilities as residents’ initial beliefs are reinforced rather than challenged after they reviewed self-selected articles. Implications for public policy and communication strategies related to improving the acceptance of NSF storage facilities are discussed.

참고문헌 (82)

  1. Y. Liang, "Exploring public acceptance of nuclear waste in Taiwan, China: investigating the impact of perceived risks and benefits of nuclear energy", J. Risk Res, 26(12), pp.1314~1330 (2023)[DOI]
  2. H. Moon, "Managing spent nuclear fuel in South Korea : heterogeneous public attitudes toward different management strategies at individual-and segment levels", Int. J. Energy Res, 44(10), pp.8037~8052 (2020)[DOI]
  3. C. -H. Lee, "Implementation of spent nuclear fuel disposal in Taiwan", J. Hazard Mater, 51(1), pp.1~10 (1996)[DOI]
  4. M. -F. Fan, "Environmental justice and nuclear waste conflicts in Taiwan", Environ. Polit, 15(3), pp.417~434 (2006)[DOI]
  5. MOTIE, "2nd High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Master Plan", ~ (2021)
  6. S. Wang, "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: the role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement", Energy Pol, 126, pp.352~360 (2019)[DOI]
  7. S. Wang, "How and when does information publicity affect public acceptance of nuclear energy?", Energy, 198, pp.117290~ (2020)[DOI]
  8. R. S. Nickerson, "Confirmation bias : a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises", Rev. Gen. Psychol, 2(2), pp.175~220 (1998)[DOI]
  9. C. G. Lord, "Biased assimilation and attitude polarization : the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence", J. Pers. Soc. Psychol, 37(11), pp.2098~2109 (1979)[DOI]
  10. N. J. Stroud, "Polarization and partisan selective exposure", J. Commun, 60(3), pp.556~576 (2010)[DOI]
  11. P. C. Wason, "On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task", Q. J. Exp. Psychol, 12(3), pp.129~140 (1960)[DOI]
  12. J. Esteban, "Polarization and conflict : theoretical and empirical issues", J. Peace Res, 45(2), pp.131~141 (2008)[DOI]
  13. S. M. Jang, "Challenges to selective exposure: selective seeking and avoidance in a multitasking media environment", Mass Commun, Soc, 17(5), pp.665~688 (2014)[DOI]
  14. S. Knobloch-Westerwick, "Confirmation bias in online searches : impacts of selective exposure before an election on political attitude strength and shifts", J. Comput-Mediat. Comm, 20(2), pp.171~187 (2014)[DOI]
  15. D. Kuhn, "Effects of evidence on attitudes: is polarization the norm?", Psychol. Sci, 7(2), pp.115~120 (1996)[DOI]
  16. A. G. Miller, "The attitude polarization phenomenon: role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change", J. Pers. Soc. Psychol, 64(4), pp.561~574 (1993)[DOI]
  17. B. Fischhoff, "How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits", Policy Sci, 9(2), pp.127~152 (1978)[DOI]
  18. L. Sjoberg, "Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees", Risk Anal, 11(4), pp.607~618 (1991)[DOI]
  19. H. Kunreuther, "Economics, psychology, and protective behavior", Am. Econ. Rev, 68(2), pp.64~69 (1978)
  20. P. Slovic, "Perception of risk", Science, 236(4799), pp.280~285 (1987)[DOI]
  21. G. W. Bassett Jr., "On-site storage of high level nuclear waste : attitudes and perceptions of local residents", Risk Anal, 16(3), pp.309~319 (1996)[DOI]
  22. F. Freudenstein, "Exposure knowledge and perception of wireless communication technologies", Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He, 12(11), pp.14177~14191 (2015)[DOI]
  23. B. B. Johnson, "Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception", Risk, 4, pp.189~212 (1993)
  24. J. W. Stoutenborough, "Knowledge, risk, and policy support: public perceptions of nuclear power", Energy Pol, 62, pp.176~184 (2013)[DOI]
  25. E. F. Einsiedel, "Between Understanding and Trust", pp.156~162 (2005), Routledge
  26. J. Hansen, "Beyond the knowledge deficit : recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks", Appetite, 41(2), pp.111~121 (2003)[DOI]
  27. Y. Kim, "An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy", Energy Pol, 66, pp.475~483 (2014)[DOI]
  28. R. Kardooni, "Renewable energy technology acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia", Energy Pol, 88, pp.1~10 (2016)[DOI]
  29. Y. Wu, "Public acceptance of constructing coastal", inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China, 2017, pp.101, 484~491
  30. J. Costa-Font, "Attitudes as an expression of knowledge and"political anchoring" : the case of nuclear power in the United Kingdom", Risk Anal, 28(5), pp.1273~1288 (2008)[DOI]
  31. A. H. Eagly, "The Psychology of Attitudes" (1993), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers
  32. B. E. Tonn, "Risk Assessment in Setting National Priorities", pp.431~441 (1989), Springer
  33. P. Slovic, "Affect, risk, and decision making", Health Psychol, 24(4S), pp.S35~ (2005)[DOI]
  34. L. Festinger, "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" (1957), Stanford university press
  35. D. Vedejova, "Confirmation bias in information search, interpretation, and memory recall: evidence from reasoning about four controversial topics", Think. Reasoning, 28(1), pp.1~28 (2022)[DOI]
  36. W. Hart, "Feeling validated versus being correct : a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information", Psychol. Bull, 135(4), pp.555~588 (2009)[DOI]
  37. E. Jonas, "Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions : an expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information", J. Pers. Soc. Psychol, 80(4), pp.557~571 (2001)[DOI]
  38. E. Jonas, "The path or the goal? Decision vs. information focus in biased information seeking after preliminary decisions", J. Exp. Soc. Psychol, 44(4), pp.1180~1186 (2008)[DOI]
  39. S. Schulz-Hardt, "Biased information search in group decision making", J. Pers. Soc. Psychol, 78(4), pp.655~669 (2000)[DOI]
  40. S. Schulz-Hardt, "Productive conflict in group decision making : genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking", Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec, 88(2), pp.563~586 (2002)[DOI]
  41. W. Donsbach, "Exposure to political content in newspapers : the impact of cognitive dissonance on readers’ selectivity", Eur. J. Commun, 6(2), pp.155~186 (1991)[DOI]
  42. S. Knobloch-Westerwick, "The selective exposure self-and affect-management (SESAM) model: applications in the realms of race, politics, and health", Commun. Res, 42(7), pp.959~985 (2015)[DOI]
  43. C. S. Meppelink, ""I was right about vaccination" : confirmation bias and health literacy in online health information seeking", J. Health Commun, 24(2), pp.129~140 (2019)[DOI]
  44. D. L. Dickinson, "Seeking confirmation? Biased information search and deliberation in the food domain", Food Qual. Prefer, 91, pp.104189~ (2021)[DOI]
  45. I. N. Kessides, "Nuclear power : understanding the economic risks and uncertainties", Energy Pol, 38(8), pp.3849~3864 (2010)[DOI]
  46. S. W. Kidd, "Nuclear power–Economics and public acceptance", Energy Strategy Rev, 1(4), pp.277~281 (2013)[DOI]
  47. M. C. Kim, "An analytic model for situation assessment of nuclear power plant operators based on Bayesian inference", Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf, 91(3), pp.270~282 (2006)[DOI]
  48. S. Kristiansen, "Risk perception of nuclear energy after Fukushima : stability and change in public opinion in Switzerland", Int. J. Publ. Opin. Res, 30(1), pp.24~50 (2018)[DOI]
  49. S. K. Yeo, "Partisan amplification of risk : American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster", Energy Pol, 67, pp.727~736 (2014)[DOI]
  50. P. Slovic, "Rating the risks", Environment, 21(3), pp.14~39 (1979)[DOI]
  51. L. Sjoberg, "Factors in risk perception", Risk Anal, 20(1), pp.1~12 (2000)[DOI]
  52. P. Slovic, "Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste", Science, 254(5038), pp.1603~1607 (1991)[DOI]
  53. L. Huang, "Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110(49), pp.19742~19747 (2013)[DOI]
  54. J. Zeng, "Information-seeking intentions of residents regarding the risks of nuclear power plant : an empirical study in China", Nat. Hazards, 87(2), pp.739~755 (2017)[DOI]
  55. R. P. Abelson, "Conviction", Am. Psychol, 43(4), pp.267~275 (1988)[DOI]
  56. J. Flynn, "Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository : analysis of a structural model", Risk Anal, 12(3), pp.417~429 (1992)[DOI]
  57. M. Siegrist, "Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction, and the acceptance of GM field experiments", Risk Anal, 32(8), pp.1394~1403 (2012)[DOI]
  58. "Effective cooperation-facilitating social institutions reduce strategic intergroup biases, unpublished manuscript"[URL]
  59. S. Knobloch-Westerwick, "Context impacts on confirmation bias : evidence from the 2017 Japanese snap election compared with American and German findings", Hum. Commun. Res, 45(4), pp.427~449 (2019)[DOI]
  60. C. G. Lord, "Considering the opposite : a corrective strategy for social judgment", J. Pers. Soc. Psychol, 47(6), pp.1231~1243 (1984)[DOI]
  61. A. Westerwick, "Change your ways : fostering health attitudes toward change through selective exposure to online health messages", Health Commun, 32(5), pp.639~649 (2017)[DOI]
  62. A. Westerwick, "Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information : source bias vs. content bias", Commun. Monogr, 84(3), pp.343~364 (2017)[DOI]
  63. B. G. Tabachnick, "Using Multivariate Statistics" (2013), Pearson
  64. R. Seidl, "Perceived risk and benefit of nuclear waste repositories : four opinion clusters", Risk Anal, 33(6), pp.1038~1048 (2013)[DOI]
  65. J. B. Chung, "Analysis of local acceptance of a radioactive waste disposal facility", Risk Anal, 28(4), pp.1021~1032 (2008)[DOI]
  66. V. H. Visschers, "Fair play in energy policy decisions: procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants", Energy Pol, 46, pp.292~300 (2012)[DOI]
  67. S. Knobloch-Westerwick, "Selective exposure and reinforcement of attitudes and partisanship before a presidential election", J. Commun, 62(4), pp.628~642 (2012)[DOI]
  68. C. Schwind, "Reducing confirmation bias and evaluation bias: when are preference-inconsistent recommendations effective–and when not?", Comput. Hum. Behav, 28(6), pp.2280~2290 (2012)[DOI]
  69. D. Hooper, "Structural equation modelling : guidelines for determining model fit", Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods, 6(1), pp.53~60 (2008)
  70. E. Jonas, "Giving advice or making decisions in someone else’s place: the influence of impression, defense, and accuracy motivation on the search for new information", Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull, 31(7), pp.977~990 (2005)[DOI]
  71. S. S. Ho, "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: a qualitative approach", Energy Pol, 127, pp.259~268 (2019)[DOI]
  72. R. Seidl, "The role of trust and risk perception in current German nuclear waste management", Risk Anal, 42(12), pp.2704~2719 (2022)[DOI]
  73. M. Siegrist, "The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology", Risk Anal, 20(2), pp.195~204 (2000)[DOI]
  74. M. Siegrist, "Trust and risk perception : a critical review of the literature", Risk Anal, 41(3), pp.480~490 (2021)[DOI]
  75. T. Perko, "Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident, Integr", Environ. Assess, 7(3), pp.388~392 (2011)[DOI]
  76. S. Grimmelikhuijsen, "Regulators as guardians of trust? The contingent and modest positive effect of targeted transparency on citizen trust in regulated sectors", J. Publ. Adm. Res. Theor, 34(1), pp.136~149 (2023)[DOI]
  77. M. R. Di Nucci, "Confidence gap or timid trust building? The role of trust in the evolution of the nuclear waste governance in Germany", J. Risk Res, 25(5), pp.594~612 (2022)[DOI]
  78. U. Kjaernes, "Trust and distrust: cognitive decisions or social relations?", J. Risk Res, 9(8), pp.911~932 (2006)[DOI]
  79. S. Tsuchiya, "Learner-centered communication on nuclear risk : public participation and transparency through a gaming", simulation approach, 2005, ~
  80. D. Frey, "Postdecisional preference for decision-relevant information as a function of the competence of its source and the degree of familiarity with this information", J. Exp. Soc. Psychol, 17(1), pp.51~67 (1981)[DOI]
  81. E. Engdahl, "Risk, communication and trust: towards an emotional understanding of trust", Publ. Understand. Sci, 23(6), pp.703~717 (2014)[DOI]
  82. R. M. Kramer, "Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions", Annu. Rev. Psychol, 50, pp.569~598 (1999)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

Public Deliberation on Nuclear Energy Policy in Korea: The Impact of Trust in Information Provider유지성한국비교정부학회 · 한국비교정부학보2021 · 제25권 제2호Differentiated influences of perceived benefit types of nuclear power on its acceptance: Evidence from South Korea노승국, Lee Jin Won, Zhang Hailin한국원자력학회 · Nuclear Engineering and Technology2025 · 제57권 제2호National and local acceptance of nuclear power: A closer look at environmental benefit perception노승국, Lee Jin Won한국원자력학회 · Nuclear Engineering and Technology2025 · 제57권 제11호The relationship between public acceptance of nuclear power generation and spent nuclear fuel reuse: Implications for promotion of spent nuclear fuel reuse and public engagement김동욱, 노승국한국원자력학회 · Nuclear Engineering and Technology2022 · 제54권 제6호The Knowledge of Radiation and Radioactive Waste and the Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation배영, 우병득한국사회과학협의회 · Korean Social Science Journal2022 · 제49권 제2호원자력 발전에 대한 수용자의 기존 태도와 정치적 성향이 원자력 에너지 기사 선택에 미치는 영향: 선택적 노출 이론을 중심으로김효정한국PR학회 · PR연구2017 · 제21권 제4호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (49건)

Loss of power accident analysis for the HCCR blanket김석권, 안무영, 진형곤, 문성보pp. 4947-4950Effects of electrode configuration on the current density distribution of the electrolytic reducer허진목, 류재수, 이상권pp. 4951-4958Study on quantitative interpretation of uranium spectral gamma-ray logging based on machine learning algorithmWang Renbo, Huang Haolong, Fu Chunqing, Qiu Jun, Ye Yujin, Zhang Yan, Tang Binpp. 4959-4965Assessment of environmental hazard impacts in building materials (Marble), Gabal El-Galala El-Bahariya, Northeastern Desert, EgyptAbd El Rahman R.M., Hanfi M.Y., Alqahtani Mohammad S.pp. 4966-4974Continuous mapping of nuclear reactor core power using artificial neural network even in the presence of inactive detectorsGonçalves Alessandro C., Martinez Aquilino S., Talon João D.pp. 4983-4996
원문 보기