Moderating effects of respondent knowledge in public opinion research

Surveying 288 residents (median age 46 yrs) of a small community where a nuclear power plant is under construction, this study examined the relationship of residents' knowledge about the installation and (a) acceptance of the nuclear plant and (b) perceived likelihood of potential effects of th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied psychology 1979-10, Vol.64 (5), p.558-563
Main Authors: Lounsbury, John W, Sundstrom, Eric, DeVault, Robert C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acceptance
Attitude surveys
Community Attitudes
Correlation analysis
Effects
Environmental Attitudes
Human
Knowledge
Knowledge Level
Nuclear power plants
Public Opinion
Studies
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a358t-2b6d6ebdadebe299a07661c3381c98dc4d1b6411d51525aeef73389fb8a2b7ff3
cites
container_end_page 563
container_issue 5
container_start_page 558
container_title Journal of applied psychology
container_volume 64
creator Lounsbury, John W
Sundstrom, Eric
DeVault, Robert C
description Surveying 288 residents (median age 46 yrs) of a small community where a nuclear power plant is under construction, this study examined the relationship of residents' knowledge about the installation and (a) acceptance of the nuclear plant and (b) perceived likelihood of potential effects of the plant. Results of standardized home interviews by local interviewers showed no differences between low- and high-knowledge groups in either acceptance of the plant or perceived likelihood of effects. However, as hypothesized, the correlations between acceptance and perceived likelihood of 3 groups of effects (social disruption, hazards, and economic benefit) were higher for Ss with high knowledge than for those with low knowledge. (7 ref)
doi_str_mv 10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.558
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614300705</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>614300705</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a358t-2b6d6ebdadebe299a07661c3381c98dc4d1b6411d51525aeef73389fb8a2b7ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt_wNOiXrcmm81ucpRSP6DiRc8hm0zq1jWJyRbpvzeloic9DcM87wzzIHRO8Ixg2l5jXJFS4Nw29YzNGOMHaEIEFSXhrD5Ekx_gGJ2ktMaY1FTgCVo8egNRjb1bFWAt6DEV3hYRUvDOgBuLN-c_BzArKHpXhE039LrwoXe9dzsMVNSvp-jIqiHB2XedopfbxfP8vlw-3T3Mb5alooyPZdU1poHOKAMdVEIo3DYN0ZRyogU3ujaka2pCDCOsYgrAtnkmbMdV1bXW0im62O8N0X9sII1y7TfR5ZOyyQ9h3GL2H1QRKihvOcnQ5V8QqURWKlouMlXtKR19ShGsDLF_V3ErCZY78XLnVe68yqaWTGbxOXS1D6mgZEhbreLY6wGSVGH4xb4A7UCBZA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614300705</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Moderating effects of respondent knowledge in public opinion research</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Lounsbury, John W ; Sundstrom, Eric ; DeVault, Robert C</creator><creatorcontrib>Lounsbury, John W ; Sundstrom, Eric ; DeVault, Robert C</creatorcontrib><description>Surveying 288 residents (median age 46 yrs) of a small community where a nuclear power plant is under construction, this study examined the relationship of residents' knowledge about the installation and (a) acceptance of the nuclear plant and (b) perceived likelihood of potential effects of the plant. Results of standardized home interviews by local interviewers showed no differences between low- and high-knowledge groups in either acceptance of the plant or perceived likelihood of effects. However, as hypothesized, the correlations between acceptance and perceived likelihood of 3 groups of effects (social disruption, hazards, and economic benefit) were higher for Ss with high knowledge than for those with low knowledge. (7 ref)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9010</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1854</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.558</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JAPGBP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, etc: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Acceptance ; Attitude surveys ; Community Attitudes ; Correlation analysis ; Effects ; Environmental Attitudes ; Human ; Knowledge ; Knowledge Level ; Nuclear power plants ; Public Opinion ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied psychology, 1979-10, Vol.64 (5), p.558-563</ispartof><rights>1979 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Oct. 1979</rights><rights>1979, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a358t-2b6d6ebdadebe299a07661c3381c98dc4d1b6411d51525aeef73389fb8a2b7ff3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999,33223</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lounsbury, John W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sundstrom, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeVault, Robert C</creatorcontrib><title>Moderating effects of respondent knowledge in public opinion research</title><title>Journal of applied psychology</title><description>Surveying 288 residents (median age 46 yrs) of a small community where a nuclear power plant is under construction, this study examined the relationship of residents' knowledge about the installation and (a) acceptance of the nuclear plant and (b) perceived likelihood of potential effects of the plant. Results of standardized home interviews by local interviewers showed no differences between low- and high-knowledge groups in either acceptance of the plant or perceived likelihood of effects. However, as hypothesized, the correlations between acceptance and perceived likelihood of 3 groups of effects (social disruption, hazards, and economic benefit) were higher for Ss with high knowledge than for those with low knowledge. (7 ref)</description><subject>Acceptance</subject><subject>Attitude surveys</subject><subject>Community Attitudes</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Effects</subject><subject>Environmental Attitudes</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Knowledge Level</subject><subject>Nuclear power plants</subject><subject>Public Opinion</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0021-9010</issn><issn>1939-1854</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1979</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt_wNOiXrcmm81ucpRSP6DiRc8hm0zq1jWJyRbpvzeloic9DcM87wzzIHRO8Ixg2l5jXJFS4Nw29YzNGOMHaEIEFSXhrD5Ekx_gGJ2ktMaY1FTgCVo8egNRjb1bFWAt6DEV3hYRUvDOgBuLN-c_BzArKHpXhE039LrwoXe9dzsMVNSvp-jIqiHB2XedopfbxfP8vlw-3T3Mb5alooyPZdU1poHOKAMdVEIo3DYN0ZRyogU3ujaka2pCDCOsYgrAtnkmbMdV1bXW0im62O8N0X9sII1y7TfR5ZOyyQ9h3GL2H1QRKihvOcnQ5V8QqURWKlouMlXtKR19ShGsDLF_V3ErCZY78XLnVe68yqaWTGbxOXS1D6mgZEhbreLY6wGSVGH4xb4A7UCBZA</recordid><startdate>197910</startdate><enddate>197910</enddate><creator>Lounsbury, John W</creator><creator>Sundstrom, Eric</creator><creator>DeVault, Robert C</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><general>American Psychological Association, etc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>197910</creationdate><title>Moderating effects of respondent knowledge in public opinion research</title><author>Lounsbury, John W ; Sundstrom, Eric ; DeVault, Robert C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a358t-2b6d6ebdadebe299a07661c3381c98dc4d1b6411d51525aeef73389fb8a2b7ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1979</creationdate><topic>Acceptance</topic><topic>Attitude surveys</topic><topic>Community Attitudes</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Effects</topic><topic>Environmental Attitudes</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Knowledge Level</topic><topic>Nuclear power plants</topic><topic>Public Opinion</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lounsbury, John W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sundstrom, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeVault, Robert C</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>PsycArticles (via ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lounsbury, John W</au><au>Sundstrom, Eric</au><au>DeVault, Robert C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Moderating effects of respondent knowledge in public opinion research</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied psychology</jtitle><date>1979-10</date><risdate>1979</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>558</spage><epage>563</epage><pages>558-563</pages><issn>0021-9010</issn><eissn>1939-1854</eissn><coden>JAPGBP</coden><abstract>Surveying 288 residents (median age 46 yrs) of a small community where a nuclear power plant is under construction, this study examined the relationship of residents' knowledge about the installation and (a) acceptance of the nuclear plant and (b) perceived likelihood of potential effects of the plant. Results of standardized home interviews by local interviewers showed no differences between low- and high-knowledge groups in either acceptance of the plant or perceived likelihood of effects. However, as hypothesized, the correlations between acceptance and perceived likelihood of 3 groups of effects (social disruption, hazards, and economic benefit) were higher for Ss with high knowledge than for those with low knowledge. (7 ref)</abstract><cop>Washington, etc</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.558</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-9010
ispartof Journal of applied psychology, 1979-10, Vol.64 (5), p.558-563
issn 0021-9010
1939-1854
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_614300705
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); PsycARTICLES
subjects Acceptance
Attitude surveys
Community Attitudes
Correlation analysis
Effects
Environmental Attitudes
Human
Knowledge
Knowledge Level
Nuclear power plants
Public Opinion
Studies
title Moderating effects of respondent knowledge in public opinion research
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T20%3A35%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Moderating%20effects%20of%20respondent%20knowledge%20in%20public%20opinion%20research&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20psychology&rft.au=Lounsbury,%20John%20W&rft.date=1979-10&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=558&rft.epage=563&rft.pages=558-563&rft.issn=0021-9010&rft.eissn=1939-1854&rft.coden=JAPGBP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/0021-9010.64.5.558&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614300705%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a358t-2b6d6ebdadebe299a07661c3381c98dc4d1b6411d51525aeef73389fb8a2b7ff3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614300705&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true