| The development of effective curricula for Energy Education programs requires not only a knowledge of the subject matter, but also an understanding of the related social controversies which exist. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the usefulness of the discriminant analysis technique in helping to achieve such an understanding. The study focuses on nuclear power because of the seriousness of the nuclear debate which the world has witnessed during the past decade.;The discriminant analysis consisted of three phases referred to as significance testing, explanation, and classification. In phase one the ability of the five subscales--collectively and separately--to define part of the difference in attitudes was tested. To this end, both multivariate and univariate analyses of variance procedures were used. In phase two, the relative importance of each of the subscales for explaining the difference in attitudes was determined, and in phase three the members of the general public were categorized as either antinuclear or pronuclear.;Analysis of the data resulted in the following conclusions. No difference in attitude toward nuclear power was found in the antinuclear or pronuclear groups based on sex, age, or educational background of the subjects; however, significant differences due to sex and educational background were found within the random sample of the general public. Males and college-educated persons were found to be more pronuclear (or less antinuclear) than females or persons without a college education. Each of the subscales revealed a difference in attitude between the antinuclear and pronuclear groups and between the antinuclear and pronuclear segments of the general public. For the antinuclear and pronuclear groups, the issue of health and safety was found to be most responsible for the difference in attitude, followed by need for nuclear power, faith in science and technology, trust in utility companies, and trust in government. The "hierarchy of issues" for the antinuclear and pronuclear segments of the general public was similar except that trust in government preceded trust in utility companies. According to the classification results from phase three, 60.9% of the 110 members of the random sample of the general public were found to be pronuclear, while 39.1% were classified as antinuclear.;An attitude test instrument was developed and pilot-tested at The Ohio State University and consisted of five subscales including Faith in Science and Technology, Health and Safety, Need for Nuclear Power, Trust in Government, and Trust in Utility Companies. During the summer of 1980, data was solicited from three populations including antinuclear and pronuclear groups in sections of Ohio and Kentucky and a random sample of the general public living in or near Columbus, Ohio. |
