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.     

社会网络、 先前经验与创业风险识别

无法识别创业风险是导致创业失败的主要原因之一,如何有效识别并管理创业风险是新创企业健康成长的关键.社会网络能够弥补创业者在识别风险过程中的信息劣势,但既有研究极少探索社会网络是否以及如何影响创业风险识别.为弥补这个研究空白,文章利用信息处理理论为研究框架,构建了创业风险识别模型.具体而言,结构洞和网络强度有利于创业者获取更多、高质量与风险相关的信息,进而识别更多的创业风险;获取信息的数量在网络强度与创业风险识别关系之间发挥完全中介作用;创业者的先前经验正向影响创业风险识别,并对结构洞与获取信息的数量之间关系起调节作用.文章讨论了研究结果的理论贡献与实践启发.     

A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards

The psychometric paradigm has been the most influential model in the field of risk analysis. The "cognitive maps" of hazards produced by the paradigm seem to explain how laypeople perceive the various risks they face. Because most of the studies used aggregated data, analyzed using principal component analysis, it is not known whether the model neglects individual differences in risk perception. There has been much criticism on the fact that few studies have examined individual differences in the cognitive representation of hazards. In order to detect and describe the internal structure of the three-way data, we conducted a three-way component analysis (3MPCA). Data for the present analysis were derived from a mail survey conducted in Switzerland. Participants were asked to judge 9 attributes for 26 hazards. Individual differences in the cognitive representation of hazards were correlated with external variables (e.g., general trust). The results suggest that methods permitting individual differences should be used more frequently and that utilizing different methods could provide greater insight into the cognitive representation of risks.     

The Distribution of Risks: Vehicle Occupant Fatalities and Time of the Week

Automobile accident risks vary significantly across populations, places, and times. This study describes the time-varying pattern of societal risk. The relative risks of occupant fatality per person-mile of travel are estimated here for each hour of the week, using 1983 data. The results exhibit a strong time-of-day effect and have a highly skewed frequency distribution, implying wide variations in risk-taking behavior. Indeed, the 168 hourly estimates ranged from a low of 0.32 times the average around Sunday noon to a high of 43 times the average at 3:00 a.m. on Sunday, i.e., by a factor of 134 from bottom to top. Quantile-quantile plots or "Lorenz curves," introduced to display the unequal distribution of risks, show that approximately 34% of the vehicle occupant fatalities occur in hours representing only 5% of the travel. These findings have serious implications for risk analysis. First, when attempting to reconcile objective and subjective risk estimates, risk communicators should carefully control for when and to whom the risk in question is applicable. Second, comparisons of hazards on the basis of average risk are necessarily misleading for risks distributed so unevenly. Third, resource allocation decisions can benefit by knowing how incidence, exposure, and risk vary across time, place, and other relevant variables. Finally, certain cost-benefit analyses that use average values to estimate risk exposure can be misleading.     

Import Security: Assessing the Risks of Imported Food

We use data on food import violations from the FDA Operational and Administrative System for Import Support (OASIS) to address rising concerns associated with imported food, quantify import risks by product and by country of origin, and explore the usefulness of OASIS data for risk assessment. In particular, we assess whether there are significant trends in violations, whether import violations can be used to quantify risks by country and by product, and how import risks depend on economic factors of the country of origin. The results show that normalizing import violations by volume of imports provides a meaningful indicator of risk. We then use regression analysis to characterize import risks.  Using this model, we analyze import risks by product type, violation type, and economic factors of the country of origin.  We find that OASIS data are useful in quantifying food import risks, and that the rate of refusals provides a useful decision tool for risk management.  Furthermore, we find that some economic factors are significant indicators of food import risk by country.     

Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport-Caught Fish

Fish consumers may incur benefits and risks from eating fish. Health advisories issued by states, tribes, and other entities typically include advice about how to limit fish consumption or change other behaviors (e.g., fish cleaning or cooking) to reduce health risks from exposure to contaminants. Eating fish, however, may provide health benefits. Risk communicators and fish consumers have suggested the importance of including risk comparison information, as well as health risk-benefit comparisons in health advisory communications. To improve understanding about how anglers fishing in waters affected by health advisories may respond to such risk-risk or risk-benefit information, we surveyed Lake Ontario (NY, USA) anglers. We interviewed by telephone 4,750 anglers, 2,593 of which had fished Lake Ontario in the past 12 months and were sent a detailed mail questionnaire (1,245 responded). We posed questions varying the magnitude of health risks and health benefits to be gained by fish consumption, and varied the population affected by these risks and benefits (anglers, children, women of childbearing age, and unborn children). Respondents were influenced by health benefit and health risk information. When risks were high, most respondents would eat less fish regardless of the benefit level. When risks were low, the magnitude of change in fish consumption was related to level of benefit. Responses differed depending on the question wording order, that is, whether "risks" were posed before "benefits." For a given risk-benefit level, respondents would give different advice to women of childbearing age versus children, with more conservative advice (eat less fish) provided to women of childbearing age. Respondents appeared to be influenced more strongly by risk-risk comparisons (e.g., risks from other foods vs. risks from fish) than by risk-benefit comparisons (e.g., risks from fish vs. benefits from fish). Risk analysts and risk communicators should improve efforts to include risk-risk and risk-benefit comparisons in communication efforts, and to clarify to whom the health risks and benefits from fish consumption may accrue.     

The Risks of "Putting the Numbers in Context": A Cautionary Tale

Despite the warnings of risk communication specialists, members of the technical community often urge that technological risks should be "put in context" by comparisons against risks that are more familiar. Little quantitative evidence is available on the actual behavioral consequences of such risk comparison efforts. In the present study, subjects were presented with two types of information about a hazardous waste incinerator–a simplified statistical summary and a comparison of incinerator risks against the risks of smoking. Statistical information led to a modest increase in the reported willingness to vote in favor of the incinerator in a community referendum, but the comparison against cigarettes led to a slight decrease in support; the difference between the two messages is statistically significant ( p <.001). In combination with other results, this study's findings suggest that an implicit assumption of risk comparisons is in error: Opposition to controversial technologies may have little to do with citizens' levels of information about technology, having more to do with citizens' levels of trust in governmental and industrial actors.     

External Initiators in Probabilistic Reactor Accident Analysis—Earthquakes, Fires, Floods, Winds

This article discusses the methodologies presently available for analyzing the contribution of "external initiators" to overall risks in the context of PRA (probabilistic risk assessment) of large commercial nuclear power reactors. "External initiators" include earthquakes, fires and floods inside the plant, external floods, high winds, aircraft, barge, and ship collisions, noxious or explosive gases offsite, and so on. These are in contrast to "internal initiators" such as active or passive plant equipment failures, human errors, and loss of electrical power. The ability to consider external initiators within PRA has undergone major advances in recent years. In general, uncertainties associated with the calculated risks from external initiators are much larger than those associated with internal initiators. The principal uncertainties lie with development of hazard curves (such as the frequency of occurrence of an event exceeding a given size: for example, the likelihood of a hurricane with winds exceeding 125 knots). For assessment of earthquakes, internal fires and floods, and high winds, the methodology is reasonably mature for qualitative assessment but not for quantitative application. The risks from other external initiators are generally considered to be low, either because of the very long recurrence time associated with the events or because the plants are judged to be well designed to withstand them.     

An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk

This article investigates how accurately experts (underwriters) and lay persons (university students) judge the risks posed by life-threatening events Only one prior study (Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1985) has previously investigated the veracity of expert versus lay judgments of the magnitude of risk. In that study, a heterogeneous grouping of 15 experts was found to judge, using marginal estimations, a variety of risks as closer to the true annual frequencies of death than convenience samples of the lay population. In this study, we use a larger, homogenous sample of experts performing an ecologically valid task. We also ask our respondents to assess frequencies and relative frequencies directly, rather than ask for a "risk" estimate--a response mode subject to possible qualitative attributions-as was done in the Slovic et al. study. Although we find that the experts outperformed lay persons on a number of measures, the differences are small, and both groups showed similar global biases in terms of: (1) overestimating the likelihood of dying from a condition (marginal probability) and of dying from a condition given that it happens to you (conditional probability), and (2) underestimating the ratios of marginal and conditional likelihoods between pairs of potentially lethal events. In spite of these scaling problems, both groups showed quite good performance in ordering the lethal events in terms of marginal and conditional likelihoods. We discuss the nature of expertise using a framework developed by Bolger and Wright (1994), and consider whether the commonsense assumption of the superiority of expert risk assessors in making magnitude judgments of risk is, in fact, sensible.     

Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks

Trust is an important factor in risk management. There is little agreement among researchers, however, on how trust in risk management should be studied. Based on a comprehensive review of the trust literature a "dual-mode model of social trust and confidence" is proposed. Trust and confidence are separate but, under some circumstances, interacting sources of cooperation. Trust is based on value similarity, and confidence is based on performance. According to our model, judging similarity between an observer's currently active values and the values attributed to others determines social trust. Thus, the basis for trust is a judgment that the person to be trusted would act as the trusting person would. Interpretation of the other's performance influences confidence. Both social trust and confidence have an impact on people's willingness to cooperate (e.g., accept electromagnetic fields or EMF in the neighborhood). The postulated model was tested in the applied context of EMF risks. Structural equation modeling procedures and data from a random sample of 1,313 Swiss citizens between 18 and 74 years old were used. Results indicated that after minor modifications the model explained the data very well. In the applied context of EMF risks, both trust and confidence had an impact on cooperation. Results suggest that the dual-mode model of social trust and confidence could be used as a common framework in the field of trust and risk management. Practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Constructing Scientific Authorities: Issue Framing of Chlorinated Disinfection Byproducts in Public Health

The practice of chlorine disinfection of drinking water to reduce microbial risks provides substantial benefits to public health. However, increasing concern around potential risks of cancer associated with exposure to chlorinated disinfection byproducts confuses this issue. This article examines the science agenda regarding chlorinated disinfection byproducts (CDBP) and cancer in Canada and the United States, focusing on the social construction of scientific knowledge claims and evidence. Data for this analysis were obtained from published documents as well as from in-depth interviews with epidemiologists and toxicologists centrally involved with the issue in both countries. Results of the analysis suggest that toxicological scientists want to close the door on the "chloroform issue" due to increasing evidence that chloroform is safe at low doses, because epidemiological scientists can no longer move forward the cancer science until significant improvements can be made in assessing human exposures, and because the scientific foci of research on DBP have shifted accordingly. Further, a distinction emerges in terms of how scientific uncertainties are interpreted when they cross-cut disciplines in the context of human health risk assessment. We suggest this tension reflects a balance of how uncertainty and authorities are managed in a mandated science-policy domain. Sufficient evidence was provided to keep the DBP issue on the regulatory agenda and to generate additional research, yet authorities and concomitant interpretations of uncertainty were contested. Such science generation and contestation inevitably influences complex risk assessment processes with respect to what water-related health risks are addressed and how.     

Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.     

Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims

Despite many claims for and against the use of risk comparisons in risk communication, few empirical studies have explored their effect. Even fewer have examined the public's relative preferences among different kinds of risk comparisons. Two studies, published in this journal in 1990 and 2003, used seven measures of "acceptability" to examine public reaction to 14 examples of risk comparisons, as used by a hypothetical factory manager to explain risks of his ethylene oxide plant. This study examined the effect on preferences of scenarios involving low or high conflict between the factory manager and residents of the hypothetical town (as had the 2003 study), and inclusion of a claim that the comparison demonstrated the risks' acceptability. It also tested the Finucane et al. (2000) affect hypothesis that information emphasizing low risks-as in these risk comparisons-would raise benefits estimates without changing risk estimates. Using similar but revised scenarios, risk comparison examples (10 instead of 14), and evaluation measures, an opportunity sample of 303 New Jersey residents rated the comparisons, and the risks and benefits of the factory. On average, all comparisons received positive ratings on all evaluation measures in all conditions. Direct and indirect measures showed that the conflict manipulation worked; overall, No-Conflict and Conflict scenarios evoked scores that were not significantly different. The attachment to each risk comparison of a risk acceptability claim ("So our factory's risks should be acceptable to you.") did not worsen ratings relative to conditions lacking this claim. Readers who did or did not see this claim were equally likely to infer an attempt to persuade them to accept the risk from the comparison. As in the 2003 article, there was great individual variability in inferred rankings of the risk comparisons. However, exposure to the risk comparisons did not reduce risk estimates significantly (while raising benefit estimates), and Conflict-Claim respondents found the risk of the hypothetical factory less acceptable than No-Conflict respondents. Results suggest that neither risk comparisons nor risk acceptability claims are automatically anathema to audiences, but they may have tiny or unintended effects on audience judgments about risky situations.     

Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication

In the past decade, the use of probabilistic risk analysis techniques to quantitatively address variability and uncertainty in risks increased in popularity as recommended by the 1994 National Research Council that wrote Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, for example, the U.S. EPA supported the development of tools that produce distributions of risk demonstrating the variability and/or uncertainty in the results. This paradigm shift away from the use of point estimates creates new challenges for risk managers, who now struggle with decisions about how to use distributions in decision making. The challenges for risk communication, however, have only been minimally explored. This presentation uses the case studies of variability in the risks of dying on the ground from a crashing airplane and from the deployment of motor vehicle airbags to demonstrate how better characterization of variability and uncertainty in the risk assessment lead to better risk communication. Analogies to food safety and environmental risks are also discussed. This presentation demonstrates that probabilistic risk assessment has an impact on both risk management and risk communication, and highlights remaining research issues associated with using improved sensitivity and uncertainty analyses in risk assessment.     

Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication

Differences in the conceptual frameworks of scientists and nonscientists may create barriers to risk communication. This article examines two such conceptual problems. First, the logic of "direct inference" from group statistics to probabilities about specific individuals suggests that individuals might be acting rationally in refusing to apply to themselves the conclusions of regulatory risk assessments. Second, while regulators and risk assessment scientists often use an "objectivist" or "relative frequency" interpretation of probability statements, members of the public are more likely to adopt a "subjectivist" or "degree of confidence" interpretation when estimating their personal risks, and either misunderstand or significantly discount the relevance of risk assessment conclusions. If these analyses of inference and probability are correct, there may be a conceptual gulf at the center of risk communication that cannot be bridged by additional data about the magnitude of group risk. Suggestions are made for empirical studies that might help regulators deal with this conceptual gulf.     

Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame-Retardant Compounds

It is a common experience that attempts to mitigate a risk lead to new risks, and that risks formerly thought to be of one kind become another kind as technical knowledge evolves. This phenomenon of risk migration suggests that we should take processes over time, rather than specific risks or specific technologies, as a unit of analysis. Several of our existing models of the social management of risks-such as that of social risk amplification-are process models of a kind but are still oriented around the playing out of a particular event or issue. A case study of risk in a group of flame-retardant compounds was used as the basis of a grounded, exploratory analysis of migration processes, the phenomena that influence them, and their consequences. This illustrated how migration naturally occurs from risks that are understood, in which risk bearers have at least some agency, to risks that are not understood and not capable of being influenced by risk bearers. It illustrated how the simultaneous improvement in measuring technology, which detects potential toxins at increasingly small concentrations, combines with intuitive models that ignore concentration to produce conditions likely to generate anxiety. And it illustrated how pressure groups and commercial interests exploit this effect. It also showed how migration makes precautionary action problematic, and how more generally it tends to undermine a society's capacity to cope with risk.     

Supply Network Structure,Visibility, and Risk Diffusion: A Computational Approach

Understanding and managing supply chain risks is a critical functional competency for today's global enterprises. A lack of this competency can have significant negative outcomes, including costly production and delivery delays, loss of future sales, and a tarnished corporate image. The ability to identify and mitigate risks, however, is complicated as supply chains are becoming increasingly global, complex, and interconnected. Drawing on the complex systems and epidemiology literature, and using a computational modeling and network analysis approach, we examine the impact of global supply network structure on risk diffusion and supply network health and demonstrate the importance of supply network visibility. Our results show a significant association between network structure and both risk diffusion and supply network health. In particular, our results indicate that small‐world supply network topologies consistently outperform supply networks with scale‐free characteristics. Theoretically, our study contributes to our understanding of risk management and supply networks as complex networked systems using a computational approach. Managerially, our study illustrates how decision makers can benefit from a network analytic approach to develop a more holistic understanding of system‐wide risk diffusion and to guide network governance policies for more favorable health level outcomes. The article concludes by highlighting the main findings and discussing possibilities of future research directions.     

Social Influence,Risk and Benefit Perceptions,and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas

Risky energy technologies are often controversial and debates around them are polarized; in such debates public acceptability is key. Research on public acceptability has emphasized the importance of intrapersonal factors but has largely neglected the influence of interpersonal factors. In an online survey (N = 948) with a representative sample of the United Kingdom, we therefore integrate interpersonal factors (i.e., social influence as measured by social networks) with two risky energy technologies that differ in familiarity (nuclear power vs. shale gas) to examine how these factors explain risk and benefit perceptions and public acceptability. Findings show that benefit perceptions are key in explaining acceptability judgments. However, risk perceptions are more important when people are less familiar with the energy technology. Social network factors affect perceived risks and benefits associated with risky energy technology, hereby indirectly helping to form one's acceptability judgment toward the technology. This effect seems to be present regardless of the perceived familiarity with the energy technology. By integrating interpersonal with intrapersonal factors in an explanatory model, we show how the current “risk–benefit acceptability” model used in risk research can be further developed to advance the current understanding of acceptability formation.     

基于风险的企业战略控制系统

本文从分析战略风险的形成以及战略风险类型出发,指出了预期战略与应急战略的风险产生主要是由相应的环境因素和风险压力的结合导致的。依据此逻辑,为防止预期战略和应急战略的风险,需要从组织外部和内部视角建立相应的控制机制,最终组成企业完整的战略控制系统(TOEM模型)。最后,为使战略控制系统在实践中切实发挥效果,企业要采取一定的措施,使战略控制系统得以实施、维护和更新。