References
- Lee TJ, Ki BJ, Kim IS. A national survey of the policy customers' perceptions and beliefs of nuclear energy issues and agenda. Korean J Advert. 2015;26:299-323. https://doi.org/10.14377/KJA.2015.1.15.299
- Yi J, Lee J, Seok D. Identification of dimensions in organizational safety climate and relationship with safety behavior. Korean J Ind Organ Psychol. 2011;24:627-650. https://doi.org/10.24230/kjiop.v24i3.627-650
- Bird DK, Haynes K, van den Honert R, McAneney J, Poortinga W. Nuclear power in Australia: a comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster. Energy Policy. 2014;65:644-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.047
- Prati G, Zani B. The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environ Behav. 2013;45:782-798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512444286
- Visschers VH, Siegrist M. Fair play in energy policy decisions: procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy. 2012;46:292-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.062
- Yamamura E. Experience of technological and natural disasters and their impact on the perceived risk of nuclear accidents after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan 2011: a cross-country analysis. J Socio Econ. 2012;41:360-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2012.04.002
- Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Gochfeld M, Mayer H. The ultimate LULU? Public reaction to new nuclear activities at major weapons sites. J Am Plann Assoc. 2007;73:346-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360708977982
- Lee HJ, Park ST. Comparison of perception differences about nuclear energy in 4 East Asian Country students: aiming at 10th grade students who participated in scientific camps, from four East Asian countries: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore. J Korean Assoc Sci Educ. 2012;32:775-788. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.4.775
- Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal. 1993;13:675-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x
- Han DS, Bae JH, Kim HI, Ju JH. Nuclear policy, government reliability and communication strategy. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Science and Technology; 2004.
- Lee JR, Lim SH, Shin TS. The tsunami-devastated Fukushima nuclear power plant accident and media discourse. Speech Commun. 2011;16:188-213.
- Nemoto M, Park YH. Improving safety against nuclear power for elementary, middle and high school student: focused on radiation education in Japan. Crisisonomy. 2015:11:93-113.
- Sadler TD. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. J Res Sci Teach. 2004;41:513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
- Zeidler DL, Keefer, M. The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In: Zeidler DL, editor. The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer, 2003. p. 7-38.
- Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes EV. Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Sci Educ. 2005;89:357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
- Jang J, Mun J, Ryu HS, Choi K, Joseph K, Kim SW. Korean middle school students' perceptions as global citizens of socioscientific issues. J Korean Assoc Sci Educ. 2012;32:1124-1138. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2012.32.7.1124
- Lee SK, Choi YS, Han EO. Curriculum development for nuclear power and radiation education in elementary, middle, and high schools. J Radiat Prot Res. 2014;39:187-198. https://doi.org/10.14407/jrp.2014.39.4.187
- Han EO, Kim JR, Choi YS, James L. Development of nuclear energy and radiation textbooks for elementary, middle, and high school students. J Radiat Prot Res. 2015;40:132-146. https://doi.org/10.14407/jrp.2015.40.3.132
- Okada T, Watanabe H, Sonobe T. Practice of radiation education class utilizing local educational resources (2): practice of radiation education in science class of junior high school attached to Fukushima University. Bull Cent Res Dev Educ Fukushima Univ. 2013;15:17-24.
- Girondi AJ. A discriminant analysis of attitudes related to the nuclear power controversy. J Environ Educ. 1983;14:2-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1983.9943473
- Eiser JR, van der Pligt J. Nuclear energy, risk perception and attitudes. In: Attitudes and decisions. London, UK: Psychology Press; 1988. p. 150-174.
- Cho KY, Moon JH. Investigation of perception of nuclear power by the local residents adjacent to nuclear installations. J Nucl Fuel Cycle Waste Technol. 2011;9:181-189. https://doi.org/10.7733/jkrws.2011.9.3.181
- Moon KS, Chang YC. An empirical analysis on safety climate constructs within Korean companies. Q J Labor Policy. 2014;14:131-154.
- Lidskog R. Scientised citizens and democratised science: re-assessing the expert-lay divide. J Risk Res. 2008;11:69-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701521636
- McComas KA. Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. J Health Commun. 2006;11:75-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500461091
- Sjoberg L. Risk perception by the public and by experts: a dilemma in risk management. Hum Ecol Rev. 1999;6:1-9.
- Krimsky S. The role of theory in risk studies. In: Krimsky S, Golding D, editors. Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers; 1992. p. 3-23.
- Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000;13:1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S
- Honkanen P, Verplanken B. Understanding attitudes towards genetically modified food: the role of values and attitude strength. J Consum Policy. 2004;27:401-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-004-2524-9
- Bem D. The concept of risk in the study of human behavior. In: Dowie J, Lefrere P, editors. Risk and chance: selected readings. Keynes, England: The Open University Press; 1980. p. 1-15.
- Harris AJ, Hahn U. Unrealistic optimism about future life events: a cautionary note. Psychol Rev. 2011;118:135-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020997
- Slovic P. Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Golding D, Krimsky S, editors. Theories of risk. New York, NY: Praeger Publisher; 1990. p. 117-152.
- Nutbeam D, Harris E, Wise W. Theory in a nutshell: a practical guide to health promotion theories. 2nd ed. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill; 2004.
- Lee YN, Kim YS, Lee JY. A study on audience-centered government policy promotion and diffusion model: With focus on properties of the policy and communication characteristics of the organization. Korean J Advert. 2013;24:39-95. https://doi.org/10.14377/KJA.2013.10.15.39
- Gelb BD, Meade JA. Advertising to communicate public policy: applying lessons from Federal Tax Law. J Curr Issues Res Advert. 2005;27:99-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2005.10505184
- Sjoberg L, Drottz-Sjoberg BM. Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Anal. 1991;11:607-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00650.x
- Ajzen I, Fishbein M, Heilbroner RL. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
- Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Action control. Heidelberg: Springer; 1985. p. 11-39.
- Ho JC, Kao SF, Wang JD, Su CT, Lee CT, Chen RY, et al. Risk perception, trust, and factors related to a planned new nuclear power plant in Taiwan after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2013;33:773-789. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/33/4/773
- De Groot JI, Steg L, Poortinga W. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal. 2013;33:307-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01845.x
- Reed SK. Cognition: theories and applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2010.
- Ramana MV. Nuclear policy responses to Fukushima: exit, voice, and loyalty. Bull At Sci. 2013;69:66-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340213477995
- Drottz-Sjoberg BM, Sjoberg L. Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. J Environ Psychol. 1990;10:135-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80124-0
- Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res. 2005;7:659-667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
- Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987;236:280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
- Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978;9:127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
- Cox S, Cox T. The structure of employee attitudes to safety: a European example. Work Stress. 1991;5:93-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379108257007
- Cox SJ, Cheyne AJ. Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Saf Sci. 2000;34:111-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6
- Zohar D. A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85:587-596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.587