“How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure

The concept of exposure is central to chemical risk assessment and plays an important role in communicating to the public about the potential health risks of chemicals. Research on chemical risk perception has found some indication that the model lay people use to judge chemical exposure differs from that of toxicologists, thereby leading to different conclusions about chemical safety. This paper presents the results of a series of studies directed toward developing a model for understanding how lay people interpret the concept of chemical exposure. The results indicate that people's beliefs about chemical exposure (and its risks) are based on two broad categories of inferences. One category of inferences relates to the nature in which contact with a chemical has taken place, including the amount of a chemical involved and its potential health consequences. A second category of inferences about chemical exposure relates to the pragmatics of language interpretation, leading to beliefs about the motives and purposes behind chemical risk communication. Risk communicators are encouraged to consider how alternative models of exposure and language interpretation can lead to conflicting conclusions on the part of the public about chemical safety.     

Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees

This is a study of knowledge, risk perception, and attitudes among nuclear power plant employees. A total of 236 persons participated, belonging to 10 different professional groups and working at two Swedish power plants. Job-related radiation risks were judged about average as compared to a number of other risks. On the whole, the participants in the study were satisfied with the measures of safety at work, but there were some exceptions to this rule, especially among those hired for temporary jobs through external contractors. The experience of job-related radiation risks was related to the level of knowledge about radiation and its risks: those who knew less experienced larger risks. General level of anxiety did not correlate with risk perception. The latter was accounted for mainly by perceived radiation risks. Job satisfaction was more strongly related to perceived conventional job risks than to nuclear risks. Risk ratings were related to how subjects defined the concept of risk. Those who stressed consequences as part of their risk definition gave higher risk ratings.     

European Public Perceptions of Food Risk: Cross-National and Methodological Comparisons

This article presents a comparative study of public perceptions of food risk across 25 European member states. A secondary data analysis is conducted on a Eurobarometer survey fielded to nationally representative samples in 2005. The survey included closed questions as well as free associations to map risk perceptions. Taking a quantitative approach, we find that people in a majority of European countries express similar levels of concern about food risks. However, outside this majority a North-South divide is evident, with the Northern countries worrying less than the Southern countries. Multilevel modeling shows that cross-national differences in individual respondents' level of worry are in part attributable to shared country effects and to generalized risk sensitivity about a range of personal risks. On the underlying structure of food risk concerns, factor analysis points to three dimensions described by groupings of risks related to adulteration and contamination, health effects, and production and hygiene. A qualitative analysis of respondents' free associations about problems and risks with food identifies three major themes that are consistent with the quantitative results. However, the free associations also point toward greater cross-national diversity and to striking variations in the range and importance of food risks. Overall, the picture is of a public that frames food risks in a wider context of beliefs about the links between diet and health. We conclude with some implications for research on food risk perceptions in particular and risk perception studies in general.     

How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks

There is a considerable body of knowledge about the way people perceive risks using heuristics and qualitative characteristics, and about how risk information should be communicated to the public. However, little is known about the way people use the perception of known risks (associated risks) to judge an unknown risk. In a first, qualitative study, six different risks were discussed in in-depth interviews and focus group interviews. The interviews showed that risk associations played a prominent role in forming risk perceptions. Associated risks were often mentioned spontaneously. Second, a survey study was conducted to confirm the importance of risk associations quantitatively. This study investigated whether people related unknown risks to known risks. This was indeed confirmed. Furthermore, some insight was gained into how and why people form risk associations. Results showed that the semantic category of the unknown risks was more important in forming associations than the perceived level of risk or specific risk characteristics. These findings were in line with the semantic network theory. Based on these two studies, we recommend using the mental models approach in developing new risk communications.     

Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests

The Seveso Directive of the European Union demands that information be provided to the public by companies and authorities about facts, risks, and behaviors related to hazardous facilities, in particular chemical facilities. On behalf of the Commission of the European Communities, a survey was run in five European countries on the credibility of various information sources. This article describes the results of the German study. 430 persons were interviewed with a questionnaire of 50 items, in particular about their perceptions and evaluations of technical risks, the credibility of sources of information about chemical risks, their preferences for receiving risk information from these sources, and their interests in receiving information. Major findings are great differences in credibility, differentiated information preferences, and strong information interests. Surprisingly, credibility played only a minor role with regard to the respondents'information preferences and interests.     

Genetically Modified Organisms and the U.S. Retail Food Labeling Controversy: Consumer Perceptions,Regulation, and Public Policy

In this article, we address the public issue of mandatory Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) retail food labeling in the U.S., first by reviewing the policy arguments both in support and against labeling food containing GMOs; second, by describing the existing U.S. federal regulatory system pertaining to GMO labeling, and why it does not presently require labeling of food containing GMOs; third, by reviewing and interpreting the results of studies of American consumer attitudes toward mandatory GMO retail food labeling; fourth, by evaluating, through the utilization of issue life cycle analysis in the nonmarket environment, where the issue of GMO retail food labeling stands in the national public policy process; fifth, summarizing the state of scientific evidence addressing the safety of GMO foods and the existing regulatory and public policy environment for this issue; and sixth, offering legislative and litigation strategies for the mainstream food nonmarket strategy framework to formally assess the GMO industry to protect their interests and those of American consumers not concerned with GMO food ingredients, while offering a voluntary labeling strategy for firms responding to and recognizing the “rights” of American consumers who “choose” to purchase non‐GMO food products.     

Elicitation of Expert Judgments of Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment of Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed Crops

One of the lay public's concerns about genetically modified (GM) organisms (GMO) and related emerging technologies is that not all the important risks are evaluated or even identified yet--and that ignorance of the unanticipated risks could lead to severe environmental or public health consequences. To some degree, even the scientists who participated in the analysis of the risks from GMOs (arguably the people most qualified to critique these analyses) share some of this concern. To formally explore the uncertainty in the risk assessment of a GM crop, we conducted detailed interviews of seven leading experts on GM oilseed crops to obtain qualitative and quantitative information on their understanding of the uncertainties associated with the risks to agriculture from GM oilseed crops (canola or rapeseed). The results of these elicitations revealed three issues of potential concern that are currently left outside the scope of risk assessments. These are (1) the potential loss of the agronomic and environmental benefits of glyphosate (a herbicide widely used in no-till agriculture) due to the combined problems of glyphosate-tolerant canola and wheat volunteer plants, (2) the growing problem of seed lot contamination, and (3) the potential market impacts. The elicitations also identified two areas where knowledge is insufficient. These are: the occurrence of hybridization between canola and wild relatives and the ability of the hybrids to perpetuate themselves in nature, and the fate of the herbicide-tolerance genes in soil and their interaction with soil microfauna and -flora. The methodological contribution of this work is a formal approach to analyzing the uncertainty surrounding complex problems.     

Using the CAUSE Model to Understand Public Communication about Water Risks: Perspectives from Texas Groundwater District Officials on Drought and Availability

Public communication about drought and water availability risks poses challenges to a potentially disinterested public. Water management professionals, though, have a responsibility to work with the public to engage in communication about water and environmental risks. Because limited research in water management examines organizational communication practices and perceptions, insights into research and practice can be gained through investigation of current applications of these risk communication efforts. Guided by the CAUSE model, which explains common goals in communicating risk information to the public (e.g., creating Confidence, generating Awareness, enhancing Understanding, gaining Satisfaction, and motivating Enactment), semistructured interviews of professionals (N = 25) employed by Texas groundwater conservation districts were conducted. The interviews examined how CAUSE model considerations factor in to communication about drought and water availability risks. These data suggest that many work to build constituents’ confidence in their districts. Although audiences and constituents living in drought‐prone areas were reported as being engaged with water availability risks and solutions, many district officials noted constituents’ lack of perceived risk and engagement. Some managers also indicated that public understanding was a secondary concern of their primary responsibilities and that the public often seemed apathetic about technical details related to water conservation risks. Overall, results suggest complicated dynamics between officials and the public regarding information access and motivation. The article also outlines extensions of the CAUSE model and implications for improving public communication about drought and water availability risks.     

How Anxiety Leads to Suboptimal Decisions Under Risky Choice Situations

The current research proposes that situationally activated anxiety—whether incidental or integral—impairs decision making. In particular, we theorize that anxiety drives decisionmakers to more heavily emphasize subjective anecdotal information in their decision making, at the expense of more factual statistical information—a deleterious heuristic called the anecdotal bias. Four studies provide consistent support for this assertion. Studies 1A and 1B feature field experiments that demonstrate the role of incidental anxiety in enhancing the anecdotal bias in a choice context. Study 2 builds on these findings, manipulating individuals’ incidental anxiety and showing how this affects the anecdotal bias in the context of message evaluations. Study 2 also provides direct evidence that only high‐arousal negative emotions such as anxiety/worry enhance the anecdotal bias, not just any negative emotion (e.g., sadness). While the first three studies examine how incidental anxiety impacts choice, the last study demonstrates the effect of integral anxiety on decision making, manipulating anxiety by intensifying participants’ perceived risk. Our results show that—consistent with findings from our first three studies—the anecdotal bias is enhanced when anxiety is heightened by individuals’ perception of risk.     

“Know What to Do If You Encounter a Flash Flood”: Mental Models Analysis for Improving Flash Flood Risk Communication and Public Decision Making

Understanding how people view flash flood risks can help improve risk communication, ultimately improving outcomes. This article analyzes data from 26 mental models interviews about flash floods with members of the public in Boulder, Colorado, to understand their perspectives on flash flood risks and mitigation. The analysis includes a comparison between public and professional perspectives by referencing a companion mental models study of Boulder‐area professionals. A mental models approach can help to diagnose what people already know about flash flood risks and responses, as well as any critical gaps in their knowledge that might be addressed through improved risk communication. A few public interviewees mentioned most of the key concepts discussed by professionals as important for flash flood warning decision making. However, most interviewees exhibited some incomplete understandings and misconceptions about aspects of flash flood development and exposure, effects, or mitigation that may lead to ineffective warning decisions when a flash flood threatens. These include important misunderstandings about the rapid evolution of flash floods, the speed of water in flash floods, the locations and times that pose the greatest flash flood risk in Boulder, the value of situational awareness and environmental cues, and the most appropriate responses when a flash flood threatens. The findings point to recommendations for ways to improve risk communication, over the long term and when an event threatens, to help people quickly recognize and understand threats, obtain needed information, and make informed decisions in complex, rapidly evolving extreme weather events such as flash floods.     

Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview

This study integrates cultural theory of risk into the risk information seeking and processing model in the context of particulate air pollution in South Korea. Specifically, it examines how cultural worldviews (hierarchy, individualism, egalitarianism, and fatalism) influence the way people interpret risk about an environmental risk, which may in turn promote or deter their information seeking and processing about the risk. An online survey (N = 645) showed that egalitarianism was positively associated with perceptions of societal and personal risks, affective responses toward the risk, and informational subjective norms. Perceived societal risk, in particular, mediated the effect of egalitarianism on information insufficiency. Moreover, cultural worldview was a significant moderator of the relationships between information insufficiency and risk information seeking and processing. The positive relationship between information insufficiency and information seeking grew stronger with increasing egalitarianism. In contrast, the negative relationship between information insufficiency and heuristic processing was strengthened with increasing hierarchy. This study extends prior theories and models in risk communication by addressing the roles of cultural worldview, an important individual difference factor in interpreting environmental risks.     

Fairness and nanotechnology concern

Research suggests that fairness perceptions matter to people who are asked to evaluate the acceptability of risks or risk management. Two separate national random surveys (n = 305 and n = 529) addressed Americans’ concerns about and acceptance of nanotechnology risk management in the context of the degree to which they view scientists and risk managers as fair. The first survey investigated general views about scientists across four proposed dimensions of fairness (distributional, procedural, interpersonal, and informational). The results show that respondents who believe that the outcomes of scientific research tend to result in unequal benefits (distributional fairness) and that the procedures meant to protect the public from scientific research are biased (procedural fairness) were more concerned about nanotechnology. Believing scientists would treat them with respect (interpersonal fairness) and ensure access to information (informational fairness) were not significant predictors of concern. The second study also looked at these four dimensions of fairness but focused on perceptions of risk managers working for government, universities, and major companies. In addition to concern, it also examined acceptance of nanotechnology risk management. Study 2 results were similar to those of study 1 for concern; however, only perceived informational fairness consistently predicted acceptance of nanotechnology risk management. Overall, the study points to the value of considering fairness perceptions in the study of public perceptions of nanotechnology.     

Hot Potato: Expert-Consumer Differences in the Perception of a Second-Generation Novel Food

Novel foods have been the object of intense public debate in recent years. Despite widespread efforts to communicate the outcomes of risk assessments to consumers, public confidence in risk management has been low. Social scientists have identified various reasons for this, including a disagreement between technical experts and consumers over the nature of the hazards on which risk assessments should focus. The aim of this study was to identify and compare the ways in which experts and consumers understand the benefits and risks associated with a genetically modified example crop. Two qualitative studies were conducted. In Study 1, mental models were elicited from 24 experts by means of a three-wave Delphi procedure. In Study 2, mental models were elicited from 25 consumers by means of in-depth interviews. As expected, the expert mental models were focused on the types of hazards that can realistically be addressed under current regulatory frameworks, whereas the consumers were often more concerned about issues outside the scope of current legislation. Moreover, the experts tended to define risk and benefit in terms of detailed chains of cause-effect relationships between variables for which clear definitions and measurement rules exist. The concepts the consumers used when reasoning about biological processes were very abstract, suggesting that the participants had, at most, a holistic understanding. In line with this, issues of uncertainty played a prominent role for the consumers.     

Further Notes on Public Response to Uncertainty in Risks and Science

Given the prevalence of uncertainty and variability in estimates of environmental health risks, it is important to know how citizens interpret information representing uncertainty in risk estimates. Ranges of risk estimates from a hypothetical industry source elicited divergent evaluations of risk assessors' honesty and competence among New Jersey residents within one mile of one or more factories. A plurality saw ranges of risk estimates as both honest and competent, but with most judging such ranges as deficient on one or both dimensions. They wanted definitive conclusions about safety, tended to believe the high end of the range was more likely to be an accurate estimate of the risk, and believed that institutions only discuss risks when they are "high." Acknowledgment of scientific, as opposed to self-interested, reasons for uncertainty and disputes among experts was low. Attitude toward local industry seemed associated with, if not a cause of, attitudes about ranges of risk estimates. These reactions by industry neighbors appear to replicate the findings of Johnson and Slovic (1995, 1998), despite the hypothetical producer of risk estimates being industry instead of government. Respondents were older and less educated on average than were the earlier samples, but more diverse. Regression analyses suggested attitude toward industry was a major factor in these reactions, although other explanations (e.g., level of scientific understanding independent of general education) were not tested in this study.     

Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters,Public Officials,and Media Broadcasters in Boulder,Colorado

Timely warning communication and decision making are critical for reducing harm from flash flooding. To help understand and improve extreme weather risk communication and management, this study uses a mental models research approach to investigate the flash flood warning system and its risk decision context. Data were collected in the Boulder, Colorado area from mental models interviews with forecasters, public officials, and media broadcasters, who each make important interacting decisions in the warning system, and from a group modeling session with forecasters. Analysis of the data informed development of a decision‐focused model of the flash flood warning system that integrates the professionals’ perspectives. Comparative analysis of individual and group data with this model characterizes how these professionals conceptualize flash flood risks and associated uncertainty; create and disseminate flash flood warning information; and perceive how warning information is (and should be) used in their own and others’ decisions. The analysis indicates that warning system functioning would benefit from professionals developing a clearer, shared understanding of flash flood risks and the warning system, across their areas of expertise and job roles. Given the challenges in risk communication and decision making for complex, rapidly evolving hazards such as flash floods, another priority is development of improved warning content to help members of the public protect themselves when needed. Also important is professional communication with members of the public about allocation of responsibilities for managing flash flood risks, as well as improved system‐wide management of uncertainty in decisions.     

Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature

Communicating probability information about risks to the public is more difficult than might be expected. Many studies have examined this subject, so that their resulting recommendations are scattered over various publications, diverse research fields, and are about different presentation formats. An integration of empirical findings in one review would be useful therefore to describe the evidence base for communication about probability information and to present the recommendations that can be made so far. We categorized the studies in the following presentation formats: frequencies, percentages, base rates and proportions, absolute and relative risk reduction, cumulative probabilities, verbal probability information, numerical versus verbal probability information, graphs, and risk ladders. We suggest several recommendations for these formats. Based on the results of our review, we show that the effects of presentation format depend not only on the type of format, but also on the context in which the format is used. We therefore argue that the presentation format has the strongest effect when the receiver processes probability information heuristically instead of systematically. We conclude that future research and risk communication practitioners should not only concentrate on the presentation format of the probability information but also on the situation in which this message is presented, as this may predict how people process the information and how this may influence their interpretation of the risk.     

Communicating Worst-Case Scenarios: Neighbors'' Views of Industrial Accident Management

The prospect of industrial accidents motivated the U.S. Congress to require in the Clean Air Act of 1990 that manufacturing facilities develop Risk Management Plans (RMP) to submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) by July 1999. Industry worried that the requirement to communicate to the public a "worst-case scenario" would arouse unnecessary and counterproductive fears among industry neighbors. We report here the results of focus groups and surveys with such neighbors, focusing particularly upon their reactions to messages about a hypothetical worst-case scenario and management of these risks by industry, government, and other parties. Our findings confirmed our hypotheses that citizens would be skeptical of the competence and trustworthiness of these managers and that this stance would color their views of industrial-facility accident risks. People with job ties to industry or who saw industrial benefits to the community as exceeding its risks had more positive views of industrial risks, but still expressed great concern about the risk and doubt about accident management. Notwithstanding these reactions, overall respondents welcomed this and other related information, which they wanted their local industries to supply. Respondents were not more reassured by additional text describing management of accidents by government and industry. However, respondents did react very positively to the concept of community oversight to review plant safety. Claims about the firm's moral obligation or financial self-interest in preventing accidents were also received positively. Further research on innovative communication and management of accident risks is warranted by these results, even before recent terrorist attacks made this topic more salient.     

The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada

Following the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada, and subsequently in the United States, confidence in the safety of beef products remained high. Consumers actually increased their consumption of beef slightly after the news of an increased risk from mad cow disease, which has been interpreted as public support for beef farmers and confidence in government regulators. The Canadian public showed a markedly different reaction to the news of domestic BSE than the furious and panicked responses observed in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. Using the social amplification of risk framework, we show that, while other countries displayed social amplification of risk, Canada experienced a social attenuation of risk. The attenuated reaction in Canada toward mad cow disease and increased human health risks from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) was due to the social context at the time when BSE was discovered domestically. Mortality, morbidity, and psychosocial impacts resulting from other major events such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), West Nile virus (WNV), and the U.S.-Iraq war made the theoretical risks of BSE and vCJD a lower priority, reducing its concern as a risk issue.