Trusting is believing: Public deliberation on nuclear facilities in South Korea

Abstract

This study seeks to further our understanding of public opinion regarding nuclear facilities by analyzing a setting where public opinion was initially surveyed, then followed by immersing representatives of this survey sample in an actual policymaking process. A stratified random sample of 20,006 Koreans was used to gauge public opinion regarding two nuclear reactors under construction. Approximately 500 representative members of this sample participated in a deliberative process to determine the fate of the reactors, thus providing a window into the factors that influenced their opinions. Using multinomial logistic regression analyses of data obtained at various points in the deliberation process, the findings provide insights into the malleability of policy preferences and the role of demographic characteristics, ideology, knowledge, information, and especially trust in shaping attitudes toward nuclear facilities. The deliberation participants (much like the wider public they represented) were compelled to weigh competing (and often conflicting) facts and arguments. These arguments were presented by different actors and information sources (such as government, experts, nuclear operators, and civic groups). Respondents reached starkly differing judgements regarding the trustworthiness (or source credibility) of various actors. These judgements emerged as important predictors of participants' policy preferences, even after controlling for ideological differences. Moreover, these judgements regarding trust - unlike demographic characteristics and ideological orientation – can and do change over the course of deliberation, which helps explain why participants' policy preferences can and do change as well.