Fired up by the energy crisis, a majority of Germans are in favor of extending the lifetime of the last nuclear power plants. (Isar 2 nuclear power plant) Image: dpa / Armin Weigel InterviewEurope's largest power plant in Ukraine is under fire again. Nevertheless, more than half of the Germans are in favor of extending the life of the remaining nuclear power plants. How does that fit together?

Still under Angela Merkel voted in favor of ending nuclear power Germany . That has changed. Although the risk of a reactor accident in the Ukraine is extremely high.

In order to understand this contrast from a psychological point of view, watson spoke to Benjamin Buttlar, a social psychologist at the University of Trier.

Benjamin Buttlar is a social psychologist at the University of Trier. His focus is on environmental psychological issues. Image: private / Benjamin Buttlar

watson: The Zaporizhia nuclear power plant is under fire and the majority of Germans are in favor of extending the service life. Mr. Buttlar – how do you explain this contradiction?

Benjamin Buttlar: The shelling of the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhia can be perceived by all Europeans as an existential threat and is not only relevant for Ukrainians. However, how threatening each individual perceives this and what impact this has on support for nuclear power can vary greatly. With the latter, psychological detachment can make us think either more concretely or more abstractly about the pros and cons of nuclear power.

What exactly does 'think abstractly' mean?

Psychological theories suggest that people Do not always process information rationally. There are various cognitive biases that mean that we do not view all information equally. For example, sometimes people tend to process abstract characteristics rather than concrete ones, which promotes psychological distance. This is how the last Fukushima nuclear disaster happened in 2011. In the eyes of the public, that was a long time ago.

Conversely, this means that people are less concerned with the concrete consequences of the catastrophe at the time life today - even if many consequences of the reactor accident continue to have an effect in Fukushima, such as the ongoing water pollution and the fact that entire areas are still restricted zones. This is certainly favored by the fact that Fukushima is also very far away geographically.

The Russian military fires rockets from the site of the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhia. Bild: IMAGO / SNA / KonstantinxMihalchevskiy

However, Zaporizhia is much closer to Germany.

The Ukraine is also a place that feels rather further away for many people in Germany. On site in Japan or in the Ukraine, the concrete disadvantages of nuclear power will certainly be more apparent.

What goes through people's minds when they distance themselves from the risks of nuclear power?

From these theories one could deduce that people with a high psychological distance tend to include the abstract problems of nuclear power - such as final storage, which must be safe for thousands of years - in their judgment. On the other hand, there are hardly any very concrete problems, such as the fact that there could be a reactor accident right on our doorstep. It is possible that our positive and negative associations towards nuclear power and our attitude will change.

CDU leader Merz and Bavaria's Prime Minister Söder (CSU) are in favor of nuclear power plants. Image: dpa / Peter Kneffel

This change in attitude could also be promoted by the fact that we are currently becoming very aware of climate change and, for example, due to the extreme drought this summer, there is little psychological distance. This could increase concrete advantages of nuclear power - for example, that no emissions are emitted by the production of nuclear power.

That sounds like an unequal weighting of facts.

Exactly. This could cause two opposing effects: On the one hand, the concrete disadvantages of nuclear power could recede into the background and the concrete advantages could come to the fore, and the otherwise negative aspects of nuclear power would then not be taken into account as much.

This could lead to a shift in attitude so that nuclear power is perceived as something positive, because the currently perceived 'positive aspects' outweigh the negative.

A nuclear power plant accident in the Ukraine could very well affect Germany through radiation.

Yes. If the nuclear power plant in Ukraine explodes, then the psychological distance would certainly be very small, since we would have to fear direct repercussions. Then the disadvantages of nuclear power would suddenly become much more concrete for us in Germany too – and who wants to feel the disadvantages? The real question here is why, despite the war in Ukraine, do we often feel confident that the consequences of a nuclear accident would not affect us?

How can this be explained psychologically?

This supposed sense of security can be explained by theories of cognitive dissonance. Dissonance describes the state when cognitions - perceptions - of a person contradict one another about a situation.

For example: I smoke and it can kill.

Dissonance causes us to have an uncomfortable state of tension internally, which we try to reduce. But often people don't change their behavior, for example by quitting smoking, but they include additional cognitions. With regard to smoking, this would be, for example, the cognition, 'Helmut Schmidt was a chain smoker and still lived a long time' or 'That certainly doesn't affect me, because I don't have any previous illnesses'.

'Smoking can kill' is mandatory in Germany on every cigarette pack. Image: IMAGO / imagebroker / begsteiger

Regarding the nuclear power plants, people might release their dissonance in a similar way. For example, one could argue: 'In Germany the consequences of nuclear power are not so negative, since no one would shoot at the nuclear power plants here' or 'The nuclear power plants in Germany are built better than those in XY and are therefore safe'.

These additional cognitions can then make one feel a sense of security that may not be warranted at all.

In the German public, some politicians have spoken out in favor of nuclear power lately. There is also still a strong nuclear lobby. How are you trying to convince the public right now?

The people who are currently lobbying for nuclear power - including some political parties - primarily emphasize the advantages of nuclear power and neglect the disadvantages and serious risks. Instead, it is often said: 'If we want to become independent of gas now, we have to go back to nuclear power.'

Saint Alban nuclear plant: In France, cooling water is becoming scarce in many places. Bild: www.imago-images.de / dirk sattler

But for nuclear power to continue operating, we would need uranium. And so far that has also come from Russia, which would not break our dependency either.

In addition, the water for cooling the nuclear power plants is becoming scarce even with the current drought - as can be seen in France just sees, so that we even export electricity to France. This one-sided representation certainly also contributes to the fact that some people reconsider or change their attitude towards nuclear power.

Various crises are currently leading to great uncertainty among many people. Can fear still function as a catalyst in the nuclear debate?

no There is research that suggests that existential threats such as the corona crisis or climate change lead us to return to familiar norms and predetermined structures that are in our company exist. In Germany, for example, nuclear power was propagated for a long time and we have not had any major catastrophes with it, at least so far. So, relying on the familiar nuclear power could at least partially reduce one's uncertainty about the threats.

In Frankfurt, demonstrators are protesting against classifying gas and nuclear power as sustainable. Image: IMAGO / Tim Wagner

So there could be many different psychological processes at play that influence our attitudes toward nuclear power. So right now, in view of the crises, we should try to become aware of our cognitive distortions.

Source: watson.de