Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 252–266 | Cite as

Exploring Students’ Ideas About Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Power Using Risk Perception Theories

  • Ahmet Kılınç
  • Edward Boyes
  • Martin Stanisstreet


Due to increased energy demand, Turkey is continuing to explore the possibilities of introducing nuclear power. Gaining acceptance from local populations, however, may be problematic because nuclear power has a negative image and risk perceptions are complicated by a range of psychological and cultural factors. In this study, we explore the views about nuclear power of school students from three locations in Turkey, two of which have been proposed as sites suitable for nuclear power plants. About half of the student cohort believed that nuclear power can supply continuous and sufficient electricity, but approximately three quarters thought that nuclear power stations could harm organisms, including humans, living nearby. Rather few students realized that adoption of nuclear power would help to reduce global warming and thereby limit climate change; indeed, three quarters thought that nuclear power would make global warming worse. There was a tendency for more students from the location most likely to have a nuclear power plant to believe negative characteristics of nuclear power, and for fewer students to believe positive characteristics. Exploration of the possible nuclear power programmes by Turkey offers an educational opportunity to understand the risk perceptions of students that affect their decision-making processes.


Risk Benefit Risk perception School students’ opinions Nuclear power Socioscientific issues 


  1. Adams J (1995) Risk. University College London Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14(6):1085–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bang H-K, Ellinger A, Hadjimarcou J, Tracial PA (2000) Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol Mark 17(6):449–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BBC World Service/Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)/Globescan (2007) All countries need to take major steps on climate change: global poll. Retrieved 15 Sept 2007, from
  5. Bouyer M, Bagdassarian S, Chaabanne S, Mullet E (2001) Personality correlates of risk perception. Risk Anal 21(3):457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (1994) Children’s ideas about radioactivity and radiation: sources, made of travel, uses and dangers. Res Sci Technol Educ 12(2):145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (1996) Threats to the global environment: the extent of pupil understanding. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 5(3):186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozkurt O, Cangusu O (2002) Ilkogretim ogrencilerinin cevre egitiminde sera etkisi ile ilgili kavram yanılgıları (Elementary school students’ misconceptions regarding green house effect in environmental education). Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 23:67–73Google Scholar
  9. Brenot J, Bonefeus S, Mays C (1996) Cultural theory and risk perception: validity and utility explored in the French context. Radiat Prot Dosim 68(3/4):239–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burger J, Rousk DE, Sanchez J, Ondrof J, Ramos R, McMahon MJ, Gochfold M (2000) Attitudes and perceptions about ecological resources, hazards, and future land use of people living near the Idaho national engineering and environmental laboratory. Environ Monit Assess 60:145–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Third Assessment Report. Retrieved 15 Aug 2004, from
  12. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Retrieved 25 Nov 2007, from
  13. Christensen C (2009) Risk and school science education. Stud Sci Educ 45(2):205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutter SL, Tiefenbacher J, Solecki WD (1992) En-gendered fears: feminists and technological risk perception. Ind Crisis Q 6(1):5–22Google Scholar
  15. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns, a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dervisoglu S (2007) Learning pre-conditions for protecting the biodiversity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  17. Driver L, Stanisstreet M, Boyes E (2010) Young people’s views about using nuclear power to reduce global warming. Int J Environ Stud 67(1):1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drottz-Sjöberg BM, Sjöberg L (1991) Adolescents attitudes to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. J Appl Soc Psychol 21:2007–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eijkelhof HMC (1996) Radiation risk and science education. Radiat Prot Dosim 68(3/4):273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read SS, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope C (1984) Defining risk. Policy Sci 17:123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flynn JH, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Toma J (1990) Evaluations of Yucca Mountain: survey findings about attitudes, opinions and evaluations of nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, Carson CityGoogle Scholar
  25. Freudenburg WR, Davidson DJ (2007) Nuclear families and nuclear risks: the effects of gender, geography and progeny on attitudes toward a nuclear waste facility. Rural Sociol 72(2):215–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freudenburg WR, Coleman CL, Gonzales J, Helgeland C (1996) Media coverage of hazard events: analyzing the assumptions. Risk Anal 16(1):31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frewer L, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1181–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gardner G, Jones G, Taylor A, Forrester J, Robertson L (2010) Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. Int J Sci Educ 32(14):1951–1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofstede G (1967–2009) Geert Hofstede™ cultural dimensions. Retrieved on 15 Mar 2011, from
  31. Hurriyet Daily News (2009) Health Ministry to provide no more new data on swine flu deaths. Retrieved 23 Dec 2011, from
  32. Hurriyet Daily News (2011) Staying single a bigger threat than nuclear power, Turkish minister says. Retrieved 5 Apr 2011, from
  33. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1997) Executive summary of the North American chapter on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson BB (1993) Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk Issues Health Saf 4(3):189–212Google Scholar
  35. Kabasakal H, Bodur M (1998) Leadership, values and institutions: the case of Turkey. Istanbul: Bogazici University Research paperGoogle Scholar
  36. Kılınç A, Stanisstreet M, Boyes E (2009) Incentives and disincentives for using renewable energy: Turkish students’ ideas. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:1089–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kılınç A, Eroğlu B, Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (2013) Could biological organisms be used as motivators for behaviour to reduce global warming? The views of school students. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education (In Press)Google Scholar
  38. Kolsto SO (2006) Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. Int J Sci Educ 28(14):1689–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Komiya I, Torii H, Fujii Y, Hayashizaki N (2008) Relationship between students’ interests in science and attitudes toward nuclear power generation. Prog Nucl Energy 50:719–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Ozdemir N, Cobanoglu EO (2008) Prospective teachers’ attitudes towards the use of NE and the construction of NP in Turkey. Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 34:218–232Google Scholar
  42. Pagnamenta R (2009) Nuclear power needed to fill energy gap. Retrieved 15 Feb 2009, from
  43. Pasa SF, Kabasakal H, Bodur M (2001) Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Appl Psychol Int Rev 50(4):559–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ratcliffe M, Grace M (2003) Science education for citizenship. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  45. Riechard DE, Mcgarrity J (1994) Early adolescents’ perceptions of relative risk from 10 societal and environmental hazards. J Environ Educ 26(1):16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roberts DA (2007) Scientific literacy/science literacy. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 729–780Google Scholar
  47. Rosa EA, Dunlap RE (1994) Poll trends: nuclear power, three decades of public opinion. Public Opin Q 58(2):295–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sadler T (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. J Res Sci Teach 41(5):513–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sjöberg L (1998) Risk perception: experts and the public. Eur Psychol 3(1):1–12Google Scholar
  50. Sjöberg L (1999) Risk perception by the public and by experts: a dilemma in risk management. Res Hum Ecol 6(2):1–9Google Scholar
  51. Sjöberg L (2000a) Specifying factors in radiation risk perception. Scand J Psychol 41:169–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sjöberg L (2000b) The methodology of risk perception research. Qual Quant 34:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sjöberg L, Torell G (1993) The development of risk acceptance and moral valuation. Scand J Psychol 34:223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sjöberg L, Moen BE, Rundma T (2004) Explaining risk perception: an evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde publikasjoner (Number 84, 2004) Retrieved 18 Sept 2007, from
  55. Slee PT, Cross DG (1989) Living in the nuclear age: an Australian study of children’s and adolescent’s fears. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 19(4):270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Slovic P (1996) Perception of risk from radiation. Radiat Prot Dosim 68(3/4):165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slovic P, Peters E (2006) Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 15(6):322–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(3):14–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sohn KY, Yong WJ, Kong CH (2001) Assimilation of public opinions in nuclear decision-making using risk perception. Ann Nucl Energy 28:553–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Solana J (2008) Climate change and international security: Paper from the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council. European Council, Brussels. Retrieved 25 Mar 2008, from
  62. Solomon J (1989) Discussing nuclear power. Phys Educ 24:344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stern N (2006) What is the economics of climate change? Report to HM Government, Executive Summary. Retrieved 25 Sept 2009, from
  64. Tekbiyik A, Ipek C (2008, June) Preservice primary teachers’ attitudes towards energy conservation. In: Paper presented at the 4th international conference on ecological protection of the planet earth: environment, maritime policies and energy issues in the Black Sea. Trabzon, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  65. Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (2009) Ulusal Nükleer Teknoloji Politikası (The National Policy of nuclear technology). Retrieved 12 May 2011, from
  66. Turkish Statistics Institution (2009) Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları (The Results of Population Registration System). TUIK 2009Google Scholar
  67. Ulutas BH (2005) Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey. Energy 30:1146–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wahlberg AA, Sjöberg L (2000) Risk perception and the media. J Risk Res 3(1):31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wildavsky A, Dake A (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? J Am Acad Arts Sci 119(4):41–60Google Scholar
  70. Yim MS, Vagenov PA (2003) Effects of education on risk perception and attitude theory. Prog Nucl Energy 42(2):223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zeidler DL (2003) The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zint M (2001) Advancing environmental risk education. Risk Anal 21(3):417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zint M, Peyton RB (2001) Improving risk education in grades 6–12: a needs assessment of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin Science Teachers. J Environ Educ 32(2):46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmet Kılınç
    • 1
  • Edward Boyes
    • 2
  • Martin Stanisstreet
    • 2
  1. 1.Elementary Science Education Department, Faculty of EducationAhi Evran UniversityKırşehirTurkey
  2. 2.Environmental Education Research UnitUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations