Attitude Studies by the IAEA/IIASA Risk Assessment Group

  • O. Renn
  • E. Swaton
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 4)


Since the beginning of our history, technology and man have been in a state of tension: man has learned to make use of instruments to refine and perfect his non-specialized organic nature in any desired direction. Technology helps him to move faster than any animal, to see, hear, and smell better, to obtain food faster and in greater quantities, to protect himself more effectively against hazards and natural risks, to prolong his span of life, and to ensure continuous propagation of his species. However, a price must be paid for this progress: increasing specialization and differentiation in society result in anonymous and incomprehensible social structures which the individual can no longer understand, technological systems of ever greater perfection and cost increase the risk of being killed by the machine which man himself has created. The acceleration of production efforts creates more and more environmental pollution which, in the final analysis, can destroy the foundations that support human life. Last but not least, technology can also amplify the negative developments in human society: the more efficient our technology, the greater is the potential for catastrophic events when aggression takes place, expressed in terms of crime, terrorism, civil unrest, or war.


Nuclear Energy Attitude Object Attitude Theory Semantic Differential Japanese Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    O. Renn, Man, Technology, and Risk, (Jul-Spez-115. Reports of the Nuclear Research Centre Julich, 1981 )Google Scholar
  2. M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture (University of California Press, Berkeley, San Francisco, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    K.R. Hammond, G.H. McCleeland, and J. Mumpower, Human Judgment and Decision Making (Praeger Special Studies, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Boulder, Col. 1978 ).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    A. Tvevsky and D. Kahneman, The Framing of Decision and the Psychology of Choice, Science, 211, 453–458 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    J.L. Janis and L. Mann, Decision Making ( The Free Press, New York, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    H.J. Otway, Perception and Acceptance of Risks, Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik, 2 (1980) pp. 593–616.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    O. Rammstedt, Was heibt soziologisch Risiko? Manuscript for the Workshop: Analysis, Evaluation and Acceptability of Hazardous Technologies and Their Risks, (Berlin, Dec. 14–15, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    J. Hoos, “Risk Assessment in Social Perspective”, in Perception of Risk, Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, eds. (Washington D.C. 1980), pp. 57–84. For a special application on energy systems, see: R. Caputo, World in Collisions: Is a Rational Policy Possible for Countries in West Europe? (Manuscript, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena (1983) prepared for Energy Policy.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    O. Renn and E. Swaton, Psychological and Sociological Approaches to Study Risk Perception (Manuscript, Invited Paper for the Workshop ENVIRISK 83, San Miniato, June 22–24, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    H. Jungermann, “Introduction: Decision Making in Theory” in Psychologische Entscheidungstheorie, Wayne Lee, author (Beltz, Weinheim, Basel 1977 ) pp. 9–37.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    M. Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values (San Francisco 1969).Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    O. Renn and H.P. Peters, “Intuitive Risk Perception: Research Results of Attitude Survey Towards Risk and Technology” in Proceedings of the International ANS/ENS Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Risk Assesment, American Nuclear Society ed. (Port Chester, Sept. 20–24. 1981 ), pp. 1464–1480.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    C. Kluckhorn, “Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action”, in Toward a General Theory of Action, T. Parsons, E. Shils eds., ( New York and Evanston 1962 ) pp. 388–433.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research ( Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1975 ).Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    G.W. Allport, “Attitudes”, in Handbook of Social Psychology, C. Murchinson ed. ( Clark University Press, Worcestar 1935 ) pp. 798–844.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    W.J. McGuire, “The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change”, in Handbook of Social Psychology, G. Lindzey and E. Avanson, eds. ( Vol. Ill, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 1969 ) pp. 136–314.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    M.L. De Fleur and F.R. Westie, Verbal attitudes and event acts: An experiment on the salience of attitudes. American Sociological Review 23 (1958) pp. 667–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 17.
    W. Meinefeld, Einstellung und soziales Handeln, ( UTB, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1977 ).Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    M.E. Shaw and J.M. Wright, Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes ( McGraw-Hill, New York 1967 ).Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    D. Krech, R.S. Crutchfield and E.L. Ballachey, Individual in Society ( McGraw-Hill, New York 1962 ).Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    M.J. Rosenberg, Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53 (1956) pp. 367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 21.
    M. Rokeach, “The nature of attitudes”, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 1 D.L. Sills, ed. ( New York, 1968 ) pp. 449–458.Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    H.C. Triandis, “Toward an Analysis of the Components of Interpersonal Attitudes”, in Attitude, Ego-Involvement and Change, C.W. Sherif and M. Sherif, eds. ( Wiley, New York 1967 ) pp. 227–270.Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    V.H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York 1964 ).Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    C. Murphy, L. Murphy and T. Newcomb, Experimental Social Psychology (Harper & Row, New York, 1937 ).Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    M. Fishbein, An Investigation of the Relationships between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitude toward that Object. Human Relations 16 (1963) pp. 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 26.
    M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour. An introduction to theory and research (Addison, Wiley, Reading, Mass. 1975 ).Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    H. Otway. Perception and Acceptance of Risks. Zeitschrift fur Umweltoplitik 2 (1980) p. 97.Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    A.W. Wicker. Attitudes vs. Actions: The relationship of verbal and event behavioural responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues 22 (1969) pp. 41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 29.
    C. Osgood. G. Suci. and P. Tannebaum, The Measurement of Meaning ( University of Illinois Press. Urbana 1957 ).Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    J.J. Otway and M. Fishbeinj, Public Attitudes and Decisionmaking (RM-77-54, Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  32. K. Thomas et al. Comparative Study of Public Beliefs about Five Energy Systems (RR-80-15, Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Reference on No. 30 and K. Thomas et al., Nuclear Energy: The Accuracy of Policy-Makers Perception of Public Beliefs (RM-80-18, Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    E. Swaton and O. Renn. Attitudes towards Nuclear Power. A Comparison between Three Nations (RM-X-83, Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Renn
    • 1
  • E. Swaton
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Program Group: Technology and SocietyNuclear Research Centre JulichJulich-1Federal Republic of Germany
  2. 2.IAEA/IIASA Risk Assessment GroupInternational Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International CentreViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations