ABSTRACT Projected energy shortages in the United States have intensified interest in nuclear power as a low‐carbon energy source, yet public acceptance remains a persistent challenge. This study employs a pre‐registered survey experiment to examine how local salience (geographic proximity) and risk information shape citizens' perceptions of newly proposed nuclear energy projects. Findings show that both factors independently reduce willingness to support, citizens' trust in government, and perceived benefit of the new nuclear power plant, with local salience exerting stronger effects than risk information in some cases. Notably, individuals who view climate change as a problem were more likely than those who do not to perceive a new nuclear power plant as beneficial, even when a proposed facility was located nearby. These findings contribute to the salience–complexity framework by demonstrating that issue salience is not fixed in a given policy setting but dynamically shaped by proximity cues and individual attitudes toward climate change. Rather than treating salience and complexity as static and independent dimensions, this study shows how perceived risk and cognitive heuristics interact to blur the traditional boundaries between them, especially in contested policy areas like nuclear energy.
Seo et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: