In: Policy sciences: integrating knowledge and practice to advance human dignity ; the journal of the Society of Policy Scientists, Band 36, Heft 2, S. 125-150
This study aims to analyze the forward/reverse causal relationships between belief (risk perception), attitude (judgment), and behavior (acceptance). A traditional view stresses forward causal relationships between the three variables. However, recently, several studies have reported the possibility of reverse causal relationships between them. Based on survey data collected from 1027 Korean/Japanese participants, here we test not only the forward or reverse relationships between these three variables, but also how such causal relationships depend on the trust and country contexts (Korea and Japan in this study). The results showed that, first, not only a general forward causal relationship but also reverse causal relationship exists between belief, attitude, and behavior. Second, there exist the moderated mediation and mediated moderation effect of trust in government and media across two countries. Third, the effects of trust in government and media work significantly overall. However, the patterns of interaction effects differ between two countries. The level of trust in the government influenced the belief and attitude of citizens in Japan more than in Korea. However, the level of trust in the media showed opposite results.
Along with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, beliefs in conspiracy theories are spreading within and across countries. This study aims to analyze predictors of beliefs in conspiracy theories. Because previous studies have emphasized only specific political, psychological, or structural factors or variables, this study constructs an integrated analytical model that includes all three factors. We analyze data from a large-scale survey of Koreans (N = 1525) and find several results. First, political, psychological, and structural factors influence beliefs in conspiracy theories. Second, when we examine the specific influences of the variables, we find that authoritarianism, support for minority parties, religiosity, trust in SNS (social networking services), perceived risk, anxiety, negative emotions, blame attribution, the quantity of information, health status, and health after COVID-19, all positively influence beliefs in conspiracy theories. Conversely, support for President Moon Jae-In's government, Christianity, trust in the government, perceived control, analytic thinking, knowledge, the quality of information, and gender, all negatively impact these beliefs. Among the predictors, the quality of information, health status, support for President Moon Jae-In's government, perceived risk, and anxiety have the most decisive impacts on beliefs in conspiracy theories.
Despite its potential risks, nuclear power energy offers some economic benefits including cheap electricity. This benefit clarifies part of the reason why people support nuclear energy. Our research examined whether there was a difference in the acceptance of nuclear energy across 27 European countries in 2009, before the Fukushima accident. In particular, we analyzed how each factor at the individual and contextual level influences the acceptance. To answer this question, we set up the acceptance of nuclear energy as a dependent variable, and 5 perception variables at the individual level and 11 structural ones at the contextual level as independent variables. We executed multilevel modeling by using a Eurobarometer survey, which covered 27 European countries. The analysis results showed that at the individual level, the perceived benefit explained the largest variance of the acceptance, followed by perceived risk and trust. At the contextual level, the share of the energy supply by nuclear power, environmentalism and ideology influenced the acceptance of nuclear energy. This study shows that individuals' acceptance of nuclear energy is based on individual beliefs and perceptions, but it is also influenced by the institutional and socio-cultural context which each country faces.
In: Journal of risk research: the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan, Band 18, Heft 7, S. 840-859