Based on a literature review on factors that explain media effects and previous findings on media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power, this article examines the effects of Fukushima on media coverage and public opinion in Germany in two studies. The first study uses content analysis data to analyse changes in media coverage, and the second one is based on panel survey data to examine attitude changes on an individual level. The results of both studies show changes in media coverage and public opinion on nuclear power. Furthermore, the second study reveals that individual attitude changes cannot necessarily be explained by the same factors as the distribution of attitudes.
ArltD (2013) Laufzeitverlängerung von Atomkraftwerken - Nein, Danke!? Der Einfluss medialer Kommunikation auf Einstellungen zur Atomkraft [Extending the runtime of nuclear power plants - No, Thank you!? The influence of media communication on attitudes towards nuclear energy] (NEU - Nachhaltigkeits-, Energie- und Umweltkommunikation, Vol. 1) [Sustainability, energy and environmental communication]. Ilmenau: Univ.-Verl.
2.
Ball-RokeachSJDeFleurML (1976) A dependency model of mass-media effects. Communication Research3(1): 3–21.
3.
BennettWL (1990) Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication40(2): 103–125.
4.
BoomgaardenHG (2014) Interpersonal and mass mediated political communication. In: ReinemannC (ed.) Political Communication. Berlin; Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 469–488.
5.
DoyleJ (2011) Acclimatizing nuclear? Climate change, nuclear power and the reframing of risk in the UK news media. International Communication Gazette73(1–2): 107–125.
6.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
FriedmanSMGorneyCMEgolfBP (1987) Reporting on radiation: A content analysis of Chernobyl coverage. Journal of Communication37(3): 58–79.
8.
Gallup International (2011) Global Snap Poll on Tsunami in Japan and Impact on Views About Nuclear Energy, 2011. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR31574.v1
9.
GamsonWModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. The American Journal of Sociology95(1): 1–37.
10.
HolstiOR (1969) Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
11.
HuangLZhouYHanYHammittJKBiJLiuY (2013) Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(49): 19742–19747.
12.
KepplingerHM (1988) Die Kernenergie in der Presse. Zum Einfluss subjektiver Faktoren auf die Konstruktion der Realität [Nuclear energy in the press. The influence of subjective factors on the construction of reality]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie40: 659–683.
13.
McCombsMEReynoldsA (2009) How the media shapes our civic agenda. In: BryantJZillmannD (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1–16.
14.
McGaurrLLesterL (2009) Complementary problems, competing risks: Climate change, nuclear energy and the Australian. In: BoyceTLewisJ (eds) Climate Change and the Media. New York, NY: Lang, pp. 174–185.
15.
Noelle-NeumannE (1973) Kumulation, Konsonanz und Öffentlichkeitseffekt. Ein neuer Ansatz zur Analyse der Wirkung der Massenmedien [Cumulation, consonance and ubiquity effect. A new approach to the analysis of mass media effects]. Publizistik18(1): 26–55.
16.
Noelle-NeumannEPetersenT (2004) The spiral of silence and the social nature of man. In: KaidLL (ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 339–356.
17.
OverhoffK (1984) Die Politisierung des Themas Kernenergie [The Politicization of Nuclear Energy]. Regensburg: Roderer.
18.
PetersenT (2010) Wenig Aufregung um die Kernenergie [Little commotion about nuclear energy]. Dokumentation des Beitrags in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung Nr. 70 vom 24. März2010. Allensbach: Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach.
19.
PettyREBrinolPPriesterJR (2009) Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: BryantJZillmannD (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 125–164.
20.
PidgeonNKaspersonRESlovicP (2003) The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
PratiGZaniB (2013) The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environment and Behavior45(6): 782–798.
22.
RubinAM (2009) The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In: BryantJOliverMB (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd edn.New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 165–184.
23.
SchulzR (2006) Die Akzeptanz der Kernenergie in Deutschland in längerfristiger Perspektive [The acceptance of nuclear energy in Germany from a long-term perspective]. Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen56(10): 34–37.
24.
SiegristMVisschersVHM (2013) Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy59: 112–119.
25.
StephensMEdisonNG (1982) News media coverage of issues during the accident at Three-Mile Island. Journalism Quarterly59(2): 199–259.
26.
TeichertW (1987) Tschernobyl in den Medien. Ergebnisse und Hypothesen zur Tschernobyl-Berichterstattung [Chernobyl in the media. Results and hypotheses on the Chernobyl media coverage]. Rundfunk und Fernsehen35(2): 185–204.
27.
VogelD (2014) Der Einfluss der Reaktorkatastrophe auf das nukleare Risikobewusstsein und das allgemeine Umweltbewusstsein in der Bevölkerung [The influence of the nuclear disaster on the nuclear risk awareness and the general environmental awareness in the public]. In: WollingJArltD (eds) Fukushima und die Folgen. Medienberichterstattung, Öffentliche Meinung, Politische Konsequenzen. Ilmenau: Univ.-Verl. Ilmenau, pp. 323–340.
28.
ZuckerHG (1978) The variable nature of news media influence. In: RubinBD (ed.) Communication Yearbook 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 225–240.
