This study explores how national context moderated change in support for nuclear energy after the Fukushima accident. The following national contextual variables are tested: geographical distance, nuclear energy production status, freedom of the press, and the building of new nuclear reactors. The results illustrate that previous research has misunderstood the moderating role of national context on opinion change after the Fukushima accident. A survey conducted shortly after the accident with more than 23,000 respondents from 41 countries has shown that geographical distance from the accident mattered: Contradicting a previous study, the decrease in support for nuclear energy was stronger in countries closer to Fukushima. In addition, support for nuclear energy decreased more in countries where new nuclear reactors were under construction. The country's nuclear energy production status and press freedom did not determine opinion change after the Fukushima accident. The non-effect of freedom of the press on opinion change contradicts the role of media after a focusing event as described in the literature. Overall results demonstrate a limited effect of national context on opinion change following a focusing event. Hence, national context provides only limited information to policy makers on how to respond to a nuclear accident.

No abstract

Communication is a crucial aspect of nuclear emergency preparedness. Making the public knowledgeable about the correct mitigation actions and allowing them to accept the required course of action can reduce the health effects of radiological risks on the public during an emergency situation. This study aims to extend existing knowledge of nuclear pre-crisis communication and the impact of the communicator's credibility. A comparison was made between the effectiveness of industry, authorities and scientists in providing information to the public. The stimulus was the varying professional label linked to the communicators in a TV-news item embedded in a large scale face-to-face survey administered at the respondents' homes (N=1031). The sample was representative for the Belgian population regarding province, gender, age, level of urbanization and professionally active status. The results demonstrate the importance of pre-crisis communication. A statistically significant difference in reception and acceptance was found between respondents in the experimental conditions and the control group, which had not been exposed to the communicated message. However, differences in credibility of the communicator as was revealed in the labels, did not influence the processing of nuclear preparedness information. Although communicators were not considered equally credible, they were equally effective in communicating mitigation actions.