This paper describes a unique effort to provide citizens with information about radiation exposure and to rebuild public confidence in information supplied by government agencies. The Citizen Radiation Monitoring Program (CRMP) trained lay citizens to monitor, interpret, and publicize radiation levels in 12 communities surrounding Three Mile Island (TMI) during the purge of radioactive Krypton from the reactor a year after the accident. One outgrowth of the accident was an erosion in the community's confidence in information about risks associated with the clean-up. Traditional mechanisms for information exchange between government officials and the public had a deviation-amplifying effect on this information gap. The CRMP sought to reverse this effect by (1) involving the communities in the program's design and operation, (2) trusting local citizens to measure and publicize radiation levels, and (3) addressing emotional as well as technical issues associated with the purge. Several implications for disseminating public information are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronson, E.The social animal. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1972.
2.
Aronson, E., Turner, J., & Carlsmith, J. M.Communication credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 31-36.
3.
Aronson, E., & Golden, B.The effect of relevant and irrelevant aspects of communicator credibility on opinion change. Journal of Personality, 1962, 30, 135-146.
4.
Baratta, A. J., Jester, W. A., Gricar, B. G., & Mulunzi, A.A citizen radiation monitoring program for the TMI area. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 1980, 35, 40-42.
5.
Billings, R. S., Milburn, T. W., & Schaalman, M. L.A model of crisis perception: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, 300-316.
6.
Braybrooke, D., & Lindblom, C.A strategy of decision. New York: The Free Press, 1963.
7.
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr.Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1948, 1, 512-533.
8.
Coser, L. S.The functions of social conflict. New York: The Free Press, 1956.
9.
Dahrendorf, R.Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1957.
10.
Delbecq, A. L.Contextual variables affecting decisionmaking in program planning. The Journal for the American Institute for Decision Sciences, 1974, 5, 726-742.
11.
Festinger, L.Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 271-282.
12.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.Belief, attitude, intentional behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
13.
Flacks, R.Protest or conform: Some social psychological perspectives on legitimacy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1969, 5, 127-149.
14.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B.The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1966.
15.
Friesema, H. P., & Culhane, P. J.Social impacts, politics, and the environmental impact statement process. Natural Resources Journal, 1976, 16, 339-356.
16.
Greiner, L. E.Antecedents of planned organization change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1967, 3, 51-85.
17.
Hovland, C., Lumsdaine, A., & Sheffield, F.Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949.
18.
Hovland, C., & Weiss, W.The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951, 15, 635-650.
19.
Ingram, H. M., & Ullery, S. J.Public participation in environmental decision making: Substance or illusion?Springfield, Va.: NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1976.
20.
Janis, I. L. (Ed.). Personality. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969.
21.
Janis, I. L.Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
22.
Kemeny, J. G.Report of the president's commission on the accident at Three Mile Island. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 31, 1979.
23.
Klein, D.Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to change: The defender role. In W. Bennis, K. D. Benne, R. Chin, & K. E. Corey (Eds.), The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.
24.
Lindblom, C.The policy making process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
25.
Mater, J.Citizens involved: Handle with care!Forest Grove, Ore.: Timber Press, 1977.
26.
Otway, H. J., Maurer, D., & Thomas, K.Nuclear power: The question of public acceptance. Futures, 1978, 10, 109-118.
27.
Reilley, M. A.The measurement of Kr-85 by a community monitoring program. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 1980, 35, 60-61.
Thomas, K., Swaton, E., Fishbein, M., & Otway, H. J.Nuclear energy: The accuracy of policy makers' perceptions of public beliefs. Behavioral Science, 1980, 25, 332-344.
31.
Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D.On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 325-342.
32.
Weber, M.The theory of social and economic organization. A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons (Eds. and trans.), New York: The Free Press, 1947.
33.
Williams, R. M.The reduction of intergroup tensions: A survey of research on problems of ethnic, racial and religious group relations. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1947.
34.
Worshel, P., Hester, P., & Kipala, P.Collective protest and legitimacy of authority. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1974, 18, 37-54.
