This article addresses organised public participation processes related to installations for nuclear research. The aim was to determine predictors that could provide an empirical insight into the motivations underlying people’s intended level of involvement. The results highlight attitude towards participation and moral norm as the strongest predictors for participation intention. Other significant predictors were time constraints, attitude towards nuclear energy, subjective and descriptive norms, and knowledge. An opposing relationship is noted between participation intention and attitude towards nuclear energy. At the same time, people who are more knowledgeable about the nuclear domain seem more willing to get involved. The analysis also revealed that financial benefits do not influence people’s intended involvement in participation processes related to nuclear research installations. The results reported here are based on empirical data from a large-scale public opinion survey (N = 1020) carried out in Belgium during May–June 2011.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50: 179–211.
2.
AjzenI (2002a) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32: 665–683.
3.
AjzenI (2002b) Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review6: 107–122.
4.
AjzenIFishbeinM (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5.
AjzenIGilbert CoteN (2008) Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In: CranoWDPrislinR (eds) Attitudes and Attitude Change. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 289–311.
6.
ArnsteinSR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35(4): 216–224.
7.
BanduraA (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
8.
BeckLAjzenI (1991) Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality25: 285–301.
9.
BeckerMH (1974) The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Education Monographs2(4): 324–508.
10.
BergmansAElamMKosDPoličMSimmonsPSundqvistGWallsJ (2008) Wanting the Unwanted: Effects of Public and Stakeholder Involvement in the Long-term Management of Radioactive Waste and the Siting of Repository Facilities. Final Report CARL Project. University of Antwerp, Belgium.
11.
BohmanJ (2000) Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
ChassinLPressonCCShermanSJCortyEOlshavskyRW (1984) Predicting the onset of cigarette smoking in adolescents: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology14: 224–243.
13.
CohenJ (1996) Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In: BenhabibS (ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 95–119.
14.
DeciELKoestnerRRyanRM (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin125(6): 627–668.
15.
DelgadoAKjølbergKLWicksonF (2011) Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20: 826–845.
16.
DijkstraAMGuttelingJMSwartJAAWieringaNFvan der WindtHJSeydelER (2012) Public participation in genomics research in the Netherlands: Validating a measurement scale. Public Understanding of Science21: 465–477.
17.
EaglyAHChaikenS (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
FischhoffBSlovicPLichtensteinSReadSCombsB (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences9(2): 127–152.
23.
FishbeinM (2000) The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care12: 273–278.
24.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
25.
FishbeinMYzerMC (2003) Using theory to design effective health behaviour interventions. Communication Theory13: 164–183.
26.
FucksIBovyMHardemanFCharronSMansouxHMilochevitchASemadeniMSprengD (2003) POFFICAD: Public Opinion via Focus Group on Energy Scenarios Including Fusion and on ITER Siting in Cadarache. Final Report. January. European Fusion Development Agreement.
27.
GerrardMGibbonsFXBushmanBJ (1996) Relation between perceived vulnerability to HIV and precautionary sexual behavior. Psychological Bulletin119: 390–409.
28.
GoodfellowMJWilliamsHRAzapagicA (2011) Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review. Energy Policy39(10): 6199–6210.
29.
GriffinRJDunwoodySNeuwirthK (1999) Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research80(2): S230–S245.
30.
GutmannAThompsonD (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31.
Health Canada (2000) Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision-Making. Ottawa: Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
32.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and Society. Third Report. HL Paper 38. London: HMSO.
33.
HuurneEGriffinRJGuttelingJM (2009) Risk information seeking among U.S. and Dutch residents: An application of the model of risk information seeking and processing. Science Communication31: 215–237.
34.
IAEA (2006) Stakeholder Involvement in Nuclear Issues. INSAG-20. A report by the International Nuclear Safety Group. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
35.
IAEA (2009) Establishment of Uranium Mining and Processing Operations in the Context of Sustainable Development. Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-1.1. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
36.
IAEA (2011) Stakeholder Involvement throughout the Life Cycle of Nuclear Facilities. Nuclear Energy Series NG-T-1.4. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
37.
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) (2009) Application of the Commission’s Recommendations for the Protection of People in Emergency Exposure Situations. ICRP Publication 109. Annals of the ICRP39(1).
38.
IrwinA (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10: 1–18.
39.
KahlorLADunwoodySGriffinRJNeuwirthK (2006) Seeking and processing information about impersonal risk. Science Communication28: 163–194.
40.
KnightTBarnettJ (2010) Perceived efficacy and attitudes towards genetic science and science governance. Public Understanding of Science19(4): 386–402.
41.
KrütliPStauffacherMFlüelerTScholzRW (2010) Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: Site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research13(7): 861–875.
42.
LaesE (2007) Citizen participation in high-level waste management: A brief commentary. Annalen van de Belgische Vereniging voor Stralingsbescherming32: 149–164.
43.
LewensteinBV (2003) Models of public communication of science & technology. Departments of Communication and of Science & Technology Studies, Cornell University.
44.
LövbrandEPielkeRBeckS (2011) A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values36(4): 474–496.
45.
MillerEBellLBuysL (2007) Public understanding of carbon sequestration in Australia: Socio-demographic predictors of knowledge, engagement and trust. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society5(1): 15–33.
46.
NRC (2004) Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0298, Rev. 2. Washington.
47.
OECD (2002) Society and Nuclear Energy: Towards a Better Understanding. NEA 3677. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
48.
OECD (2004) Stakeholder Involvement Techniques. NEA 5418. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
49.
OECD (2006) Stakeholders and Radiological Protection: Lessons from Chernobyl 20 Years After. NEA 6170. Paris: Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
50.
PerkoTŽeleznikNTurcanuCThijssenP (2012) Is knowledge important? Empirical research on nuclear risk communication in two countries. Health Physics102(6): 614–625.
51.
PoliakoffEWebbT (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication29(2): 242–263.
52.
PoortingaWPidgeonNF (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis23(5): 961–972.
53.
RetzbachAMarschallJRahnkeMOttoLMaierM (2011) Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: The roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. Journal of Nanoparticle Research13(12): 6231–6244.
54.
RivisASheeranP (2003) Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology22: 218–233.
55.
Rogers-HaydenTPidgeonN (2008) Developments in nanotechnology public engagement in the UK: ‘Upstream’ towards sustainability?Journal of Cleaner Production16(8–9): 1010–1013.
56.
RoweGFrewerLJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values30(2): 251–290.
57.
SiegristMCvetkovichGRothC (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis20(3): 311–322.
58.
SlovicP (1987) Perception of risk. Science236(4799): 280–285.
59.
StirlingA (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values33(2): 262–294.
60.
TillJE (2008) The radiological assessment process. In: TillJEGroganHA (eds) Radiological Risk Assessment and Environmental Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–30.
61.
TurcanuCPerkoTSchröderJ (2011) The SCK•CEN barometer 2011: Perception and attitudes towards nuclear technologies in the Belgian population. BLG Report 1082. Mol, Belgium: Belgian Nuclear Research Centre.
62.
Van AekenKTurcanuCBombaertsGCarléBHardemanF (2007) Risk perception of the Belgian population: Results of the public opinion survey in 2006. BLG-1038 Report. Mol, Belgium: Belgian Nuclear Research Centre.
63.
VermeirIVerbekeW (2008) Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics64: 542–553.
64.
WhiteKMSmithJKTerryDJGreensladeJHMcKimmieBM (2009) Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and ingroup norms. British Journal of Social Psychology48(1): 135–158.
65.
WilsdonJWynneBStilgoeJ (2005) The Public Value of Science. London: Demos.
66.
XenosMABeckerABAndersonAABrossardDScheufeleDA (2011) Stimulating upstream engagement: An experimental study of nanotechnology information seeking. Social Science Quarterly92(5): 1191–1214.
67.
YzerMCCappellaJNFishbeinMHornikRCSayeedSAhernRK (2004) The role of distal variables in behavior change: Effects of adolescents’ risk for marijuana use on intention to use marijuana. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34(6): 1229–1250.
