Perceived Risk, Dread, and Benefits

This paper uses regression techniques to take a second look at a classic risk-perception data set originally collected by Paul Slovic, Sarah Lichtenstein, and Baruch Fischhoff. As discussed in earlier studies, the attributes expected mortality, effects on future generations, immediacy , and catastrophic potential all significantly affect risk ratings. However, we find that perceived risk and dread show different regression patterns; most importantly, only perceived risk ratings correlate with expected mortality. In addition, average risk ratings are found to be significantly affected by perceived individual benefits, which suggests that perceptions of risk are net rather than gross indicators of harm.     

Exploring the "Psychometric Paradigm": Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses

The "psychometric paradigm" developed by Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein was a landmark in research about public attitudes toward risks. One problem with this work, however, was that (at least initially) it did not attempt to distinguish between individuals or groups of people, except "experts" vs. "lay people." This paradigm produced a "cognitive map" of hazards, and the assumption seemed to be that the characteristics identified were inherent attributes of risk. This paper examines the validity of this assumption. A questionnaire survey similar to those designed by Slovic et al. was conducted, but the data were analyzed at both the aggregate level, using mean scores, and at the level of individuals ( N = 131 Norwich residents). The results reported here demonstrate that (1) individuals vary in their perception of the same risk issue; (2) individuals vary in their rating of the same risk characteristics on the same risk issue; and (3) some of the strong intercorrelations observed between risk characteristics at the aggregate level are not supported when the same data are analysed at the level of individuals. Despite these findings, the relationship between risk characteristics and risk perceptions inferred by the psychometric paradigm did hold true at the level of individuals, for most—but not all—of the characteristics. In particular, the relationship between "lack of knowledge to those exposed" and risk perceptions appears to be a complex one, a finding which has important implications for risk communication strategies.     

Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions

Over the past 15 years, psychologists have empirically investigated how people perceive technological, consumer, and natural hazards. The psychometric-attitudes to risk being summarized by three factors: "dread," whether the risk is known, and personal exposure to the risk. The results have been used to suggest that certain types of hazards are viewed very differently from other hazards. The purpose of this paper is somewhat different, in that it investigates whether individual demographic characteristics influence psychometric perceptions of risk. This paper makes use of a large, professionally conducted, survey of a wide cross-section of the residents of metropolitan Chicago. One thousand adults were interviewed in a random-digit dial telephone survey, producing a useable dataset of about 800. Data on the three risk factors mentioned above were obtained on 7-point scales for four common hazards: aviation accidents, fires in the home, automobile accidents, and stomach cancer. The survey also collected demographic data on respondents'age, schooling, income, sex, and race. Regressions were then conducted to relate the demographic characteristics to risk perceptions. Some strong general conclusions can be drawn. The results suggest that women, people with lower levels of schooling and income, younger people, and blacks have more dread of hazards. The exception being age-related illnesses which, not unnaturally, are feared by older people. Unlike previous literature, we cannot substantiate the argument that these groups of people are less informed about hazards and thus less accepting of them. The most likely leading explanation of the relationship between demographic factors and dread of a hazard is the perceived personal exposure to the hazard. People with greater perceived exposure to a hazard are more fearful.     

Risk and Climate Change: Perceptions of Key Policy Actors in Canada

This article examines factors that predict perceptions of risk associated with global climate change. The research focuses on the perceptions of those associated with climate change policy making in the prairie region of Canada. The data are from an online survey ( n = 851) of those policy actors. The analysis integrates several dominant approaches to the study of risk perception: psychometric approaches that examine the effects of cognitive structure; demographic assessments that examine, for example, differences in perception based on gender or family status; and political approaches that suggest that one's position in the policy process may affect his or her perceived risk. Attitudes toward climate change are to a degree predicted by all of these factors, but only when indirect effects are observed. Sociodemographic characteristics have little direct effect on perceived risk, but do affect general beliefs that affect risk perceptions. Perceived risk is related more strongly to these general beliefs or world views than to more specific beliefs about the effects of climate change on weather patterns. Position within the policy process also contributes to our understanding of perceptions, with industry and governmental actors demonstrating similar attitudes, which contrast with environmental groups and university researchers.     

Psychometric and Demographic Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Terrorist Threats and the Willingness to Pay for Terrorism Risk Management Programs

A 2009 national telephone survey of 924 U.S. adults assessed perceptions of terrorism and homeland security issues. Respondents rated severity of effects, level of understanding, number affected, and likelihood of four terrorist threats: poisoned water supply; explosion of a small nuclear device in a major U.S. city; an airplane attack similar to 9/11; and explosion of a bomb in a building, train, subway, or highway. Respondents rated perceived risk and willingness to pay (WTP) for dealing with each threat. Demographic, attitudinal, and party affiliation data were collected. Respondents rated bomb as highest in perceived risk but gave the highest WTP ratings to nuclear device. For both perceived risk and WTP, psychometric variables were far stronger predictors than were demographic ones. OLS regression analyses using both types of variables to predict perceived risk found only two significant demographic predictors for any threat—Democrat (a negative predictor for bomb) and white male (a significant positive predictor for airline attack). In contrast, among psychometric variables, severity, number affected, and likelihood were predictors of all four threats and level of understanding was a predictor for one. For WTP, education was a negative predictor for three threats; no other demographic variables were significant predictors for any threat. Among psychometric variables, perceived risk and number affected were positive predictors of WTP for all four threats; severity and likelihood were predictors for three; level of understanding was a significant predictor for two.     

Simultaneous Analysis of Individual and Aggregate Responses in Psychometric Data Using Multilevel Modeling

Psychometric data on risk perceptions are often collected using the method developed by Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein, where an array of risk issues are evaluated with respect to a number of risk characteristics, such as how dreadful, catastrophic or involuntary exposure to each risk is. The analysis of these data has often been carried out at an aggregate level, where mean scores for all respondents are compared between risk issues. However, this approach may conceal important variation between individuals, and individual analyses have also been performed for single risk issues. This paper presents a new methodological approach using a technique called multilevel modelling for analysing individual and aggregated responses simultaneously, to produce unconditional and unbiased results at both individual and aggregate levels of the data. Two examples are given using previously published data sets on risk perceptions collected by the authors, and results between the traditional and new approaches compared. The discussion focuses on the implications of and possibilities provided by the new methodology.     

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.     

Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France

Cultural Theory, as developed by Mary Douglas, argues that differing risk perceptions can be explained by reference to four distinct cultural biases: hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism, and fatalism. This paper presents empirical results from a quantitative survey based on a questionnaire devised by Karl Dake to measure these cultural biases. A large representative sample (N = 1022) was used to test this instrument in the French social context. Correlations between cultural biases and perceptions of 20 social and environmental risks were examined. These correlations were very weak, but were statistically significant: cultural biases explained 6%, at most, of the variance in risk perceptions. Standard sociodemographic variables were also weakly related to risk perceptions (especially gender, social class, and education), and cultural biases and sociodemographic variables were themselves inter correlated (especially with age, social class, and political outlook). The authors compare these results with surveys conducted in other countries using the same instrument and conclude that new methods, more qualitative and contextual, still need to be developed to investigate the cultural dimensions of risk perceptions. The paper also discusses relationships between perceptions of personal and residual risk, and between perceived risk and demand for additional safety measures. These three dimensions were generally closely related, but interesting differences were observed for some risk issues.     

Who Reaps the Benefits,Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism,Comparative Utility,and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology

Although the issue of risk target (e.g., self, others, children) is widely acknowledged in risk perception research, its importance appears underappreciated. To date, most research has been satisfied with demonstrating comparative optimism, i.e., lower perceived risk for the self than others, and exploring its moderators, such as perceived controllability and personal exposure. Much less research has investigated how the issue of target may affect benefit perceptions or key outcomes such as stated preferences for hazard regulation. The current research investigated these issues using data from a public survey of attitudes toward mobile phone technology (N= 1,320). First, results demonstrated comparative optimism for this hazard, and also found moderating effects of both controllability and personal exposure. Second, there was evidence of comparative utility, i.e., users believed that the benefits from mobile phone technology are greater for the self than others. Third, and most important for policy, preferences for handset regulation were best predicted by perceptions of the risks to others but perceived benefits for the self. Results suggest a closer awareness of target can improve prediction of stated preferences for hazard regulation and that it would be profitable for future research to pay more attention to the issue of target for both risk and benefit perceptions.     

Major Psychological Factors Affecting Acceptance of Gene-Recombination Technology

The purpose of this study was to verify the validity of a causal model that was made to predict the acceptance of gene-recombination technology. A structural equation model was used as a causal model. First of all, based on preceding studies, the factors of perceived risk, perceived benefit, and trust were set up as important psychological factors determining acceptance of gene-recombination technology in the structural equation model. An additional factor, "sense of bioethics," which I consider to be important for acceptance of biotechnology, was added to the model. Based on previous studies, trust was set up to have an indirect influence on the acceptance of gene-recombination technology through perceived risk and perceived benefit in the model. Participants were 231 undergraduate students in Japan who answered a questionnaire with a 5-point bipolar scale. The results indicated that the proposed model fits the data well, and showed that acceptance of gene-recombination technology is explained largely by four factors, that is, perceived risk, perceived benefit, trust, and sense of bioethics, whether the technology is applied to plants, animals, or human beings. However, the relative importance of the four factors was found to vary depending on whether the gene-recombination technology was applied to plants, animals, or human beings. Specifically, the factor of sense of bioethics is the most important factor in acceptance of plant gene-recombination technology and animal gene-recombination technology, and the factors of trust and perceived risk are the most important factors in acceptance of human being gene-recombination technology.     

Exploring Factors Influencing the Risky Cycling Behaviors of Young Cyclists Aged 15–24 Years: A Questionnaire-Based Study in China

Road traffic crashes are the leading cause of death for young people, among whom cyclists account for a higher percentage of injuries and deaths than any other road users. This study aimed to examine the factor structure of the Young Cyclist Behavior Questionnaire (YCBQ) and investigate the relationships among demographic characteristics, cycling use-related variables, perceived risk, perceived cycling skills, and risky cycling behaviors among young people. A sample of 448 cyclists (mean age of 20.37 years) completed the questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation modeling were utilized. The YCBQ had a clear factorial structure, items with high factor loadings, and good internal consistency. The five-factor structure included traffic violations, impulsive behaviors, ordinary violations, distractions, and errors. Risky cycling behaviors could be explained by gender, age, perceived risk, and perceived cycling skills, with the model explaining 37% of the variance. Gender had the greatest impact on risky cycling behaviors; male individuals were more likely to engage in risky behaviors. Young cyclists with higher levels of perceived risk had lower probabilities of engaging in risky cycling behaviors. Cyclists with lower scores on perceived cycling skills were more likely to report engaging in risky cycling behaviors. Age significantly explained risky behaviors; the younger the cyclist was, the higher his or her risky behaviors score. This research provides a theoretical foundation for the prevention of risky behaviors among young cyclists. Regarding intervention design, attention to the identified gender differences, the need to strengthen the ability to perceive risk, and the importance of road safety education for young cyclists may promote safer cycling.     

Dimensions of Risk Perception for Financial and Health Risks

This study of 29 MBA students compares two models of risk perception for both financial and health risk stimuli. The first, inspired by Luce and Weber's Conjoint Expected Risk (CER) model, uses five dimensions: probability of gain, loss and status quo, and expected benefit and harm. The second, inspired by the Sovic et al. psychometric model, employs seven dimensions: voluntariness, dread, control, knowledge, catastrophic potential, novelty, and equity. The CER-type model provided a better fit for most subjects and stimuli. Adding the psychological risk dimensions from the Slovic et al. model explained only modestly more variance. Relationships between the dimensions of the two models are described and the construction of a hybrid model explored.     

Hostile media perceptions and consumption of genetically modified and organic foods: Examining the mediating role of risk-benefit assessments

Drawing upon the hostile media effect, this study examined how perceived media bias in covering genetically modified (GM) food influences individuals’ risk–benefit assessments of it and their food consumption behaviors. The results of a nationally representative survey (N = 1364) showed that individuals seeing media coverage as more biased in favor of GM food perceived it as more hazardous, which was related to a higher proportion of organic food consumption in their diets. In contrast, perceived media coverage as less slanted toward GM food was associated with more benefit perceptions of it, thereby predicting its higher proportion in individuals’ diets. More importantly, the indirect effect of perceived media bias on GM food consumption through benefit perceptions was more pronounced among males than females. The findings of this study not only provide empirical evidence of the perceptual and behavioral outcomes of hostile media perceptions, but also offer valuable insights for journalists and education practitioners to improve public understanding of emerging food technologies.     

A Hint of Risk: Tradeoffs Between Quantitative and Qualitative Risk Factors

Risk-perception research plays an active role in discussions of risk-management alternatives. However, little guidance is provided regarding how public concerns should be weighed against other sources of cost and benefits. This paper reports the results of two experiments that measure tradeoffs among cost (in dollars), a quantitative risk measure (number of deaths or injuries), and several qualitative characteristics associated with perceived risk. Most subjects were willing to make the requested trade. However, the perceived risk information led others to reject the proposed technology.     

Age and Gender Differences in Perceived Accident Likelihood and Driver Competences

Road traffic accident involvement rates show clear age and gender differences which may in part be accounted for by differences in risk perception and perceptions of driving competence. The present study extends and replicates that of Matthews and Moran (1986). Young (18–30 years) and older (45–60 years) male and female drivers responded to a questionnaire on perceived accident risk and driving competence (judgment and skill) with respect to themselves and four target groups, and also rated a series of videotaped driving sequences with respect to likelihood of accident occurrence and perceived driving competence. Results showed that effects of rater characteristics were generally confined to the questionnaire. Younger males were perceived as most likely to experience an accident and were judged to be lower than other groups in driving competence. Younger groups showed little bias against older groups and vice versa , but gender-related bias was apparent. The findings of Matthews and Moran were generally confirmed. The results are discussed with reference to four main issues: (1) demographic bias effects—which are generally weak; (2) stereotyping on the basis of gender and/or age of driver; (3) group-specific bias; (4) self-appraisal bias.     

Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada

This article reports a study on consumer attitudes to 21 food and nonfood technologies in Canada. The study involves repertory grid interviews with 36 food consumers, the data from which are analyzed using generalized Procrustes analysis. Results highlight the role of perceived risk and perceived benefit in determining the acceptability of the technologies, with individual technologies lying along a continuum between the two. For technology as a whole and the 21 specific technologies, the perceived risk and perceived benefit constructs were the dominant determinants of consumer acceptability. While perceptions of perceived risk and perceived benefit differed between individual respondents, there were very limited consistent relations with a range of sociodemographic variables.     

Understanding Public Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Childhood Vaccinations in the United States

In the face of a growing public health concern accompanying the reemerging threat of preventable diseases, this research seeks mainly to explain variations in the perceived benefits and risks of vaccinations among the general public in the United States. As Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky's grid‐group cultural theory of risk perception claims, the analytical results based upon original data from a nationwide Internet survey of 1,213 American adults conducted in 2010 suggest that individuals’ cultural predispositions contribute to the formation of their perceptions pertaining to vaccine benefits and risks at both societal and individual levels, in conjunction with other factors suggested by previous risk perception literature, such as perceived prevalence of diseases, trust, knowledge level, and demographic characteristics. Those with a strong hierarch orientation tend to envision greater benefits and lesser risks and conceive of a relatively high ratio of benefit to risk when compared to other cultural types. By contrast, those with a strong fatalist tendency are inclined to emphasize risks and downplay benefits while conceiving of a low vaccination benefit‐risk ratio. Situated between hierarchs and fatalists, strong egalitarians are prone to perceive greater benefits, smaller risks, and a more positive benefit‐risk ratio than strong individualists.     

The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology

A causal model explaining acceptance of gene technology was tested. It was hypothesized that trust in institutions using gene technology or using modified products has a positive impact on perceived benefit and a negative influence on perceived risk of this technology. Furthermore, perceived benefit and perceived risk determine acceptance of biotechnology. In other words, trust has an indirect influence on the acceptance of the technology. The postulated model was tested using structural equation modeling procedures and data from a random quota sample of 1001 Swiss citizens between 18 and 74 years old. Results indicated that the proposed model fits the data very well. The same causal model explains females' and males' acceptance of gene technology. Gender differences were found for the latent variables trust, perceived benefit, and acceptance of gene technology. Females indicated more trust, perceived less benefit, and demonstrated less acceptance than did males. No significant difference was observed for perceived risk. The implications of the results are discussed.