Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Jones, C.R.; Eiser, J.R.; Gamble, T.R. (2012)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
In 2007 the UK government's public consultation on the future of nuclear power courted much criticism. Three studies were conducted to assess whether key arguments used by government within this consultation might have influenced public opinion about the technology. Participants first read a passage of text that made salient certain positive (climate change mitigation, increased energy security) or negative (nuclear waste) aspects of the nuclear debate. Participants then completed a task that required them to create an electricity mix for the UK by varying the contributions made by each of five energy sources (coal, gas, nuclear, renewables and electric import). Study 1 seemed to indicate that pitching the debate in terms of climate change mitigation was effective in increasing endorsement of nuclear power. The results of studies 2 and 3, however, contested this conclusion, suggesting that these arguments were having little direct impact upon participants' preferences for nuclear power. The results of these studies hold implications for UK energy policy and attitude assessment and can contribute to the understanding of how the arguments used by government in the 2007 consultation might have influenced public opinion. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Epley, N., Gilovich, T., 2006. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17 (4), 311-318.
    • Oltra, C., Sala, R., Sola, R., Di Masso, M., Rowe, G., 2010. Lay perceptions of carbon capture and storage technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 4 (4), 698-706.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article