Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.07.002

Development of the nuclear safety trust indicator  

Cho, SeongKyung (Myongji Univ.)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.50, no.7, 2018 , pp. 1168-1172 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study went beyond making an indicator simply based on theoretical arguments, and explored a wide spectrum of different types of perceptions about energy safety to make a concept of energy safety for the Korean society. The energy safety schemata of people can be divided into three types. Type1 is concern about multi-level risks-responsibility-centric, type2 is concern about security and personal burden-expertise-centric, and type3 is concern about health and personal burden-responsibility-centric. Questions were designed on the basis of the characteristics, differences and commonalities of the three types of perceptions, explored through the Q methodology, and Koreans' perception of nuclear safety was examined. Based on the results of this research the following components of trust in nuclear safety were derived, risk perception, responsibility, honesty, expertise and procedural justification. The items for specifically evaluating them were developed, and factor analysis was conducted, and as a result, the validity of each item was proven. The components of the nuclear safety trust indicator do not exist independently, but influence each other continuously through interactions. For this reason, rather than focusing on any one of them, laws and systems must be improved first so that they can move together in one big frame.
Keywords
Nuclear safety; Trust; Safety schema; Risk communication; Indicator; Q methodology;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 J.R. Gibb, Climate for trust formation, in: L.P. Bradford, J.R. Gibb, K. Benne (Eds.), T-group Theory and Laboratory Method, Wiley, NY, 1964.
2 V. Braithwaite, M. Levi, Trust and Governance, Russel Sage Foundation, NY, 1998.
3 D.J. McAllister, Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations, Acad. Manag. J. 38 (1) (1995) 524-595.
4 A.K. Mishra, Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust, in: R.M. Kramer, T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theories and Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1996.
5 B. Barber, The Logic & Limited of Trust, Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1983.
6 J.K. Butler, Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of condition of trust inventory, J. Manag. 17 (1991) 643-663.
7 D. Gambetta, Trust, Basil Blackwell, NY, 1998.
8 R.C. Mayer, J.H. Davis, F.D. Schoorman, An integrative model of organizational trust, Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (3) (1995) 709-734.   DOI
9 W. Mishler, R. Rose, Trust, distrust and skepticism: popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies, J. Polit. 59 (2) (1997) 418-451.   DOI
10 S.M. Rousseau, S.B. Sitkin, R.S. Bur, C. Camerer, Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust, Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (1998) 393-404.   DOI
11 S.R. Brown, Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science, Yale Univ. Press, New Heaven & London, 1989.
12 N. Luhmann, Trust and Power, John Wiely & Sons, Chichester, 1979.
13 T.C. Earle, Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research, Risk Anal. 30 (4) (2010) 541-574.   DOI