Risk Perception and Personality Facets

The present study examined the relationship between personality facets and risk perception using the Big Five model. A broad range of hazards was considered: energy production, pollutants, sex, deviance, addictions, weapons, common individual hazards, outdoor activities, medical care, and psychotropic drugs. Key personality facets that were most predictive of risk perception compared to (or in association with) age, gender, educational level, and personality factors were identified. They were moderation and tranquility (associated with energy production or pollutants), rationality and efficiency (associated with pollutants, sex, deviance, addictions, or weapons), creativity, imagination, and reflection (associated with energy production, pollutants, or common individual hazards), self-disclosure (associated with outdoor activities), and nurturance and tenderness (associated with sex, deviance, addictions, or medical care). These facets may be recommended for use in future studies on risk perception.     

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.     

The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise

Although risk and benefits of risky activities are positively correlated in the real world, empirical results indicate that people perceive them as negatively correlated. The common explanation is that confounding benefits and losses stems from affect. In this article, we address the issue that has not been clearly established in studies on the affect heuristic: to what extent boundary conditions, such as judgments’ generality and expertise, influence the presence of the inverse relation in judgments of hazards. These conditions were examined in four studies in which respondents evaluated general or specific benefits and risks of “affect‐rich” and “affect‐poor” hazards (ranging from investments to applications of stem cell research). In line with previous research, affect is defined as good or bad feelings integral to a stimulus. In contrast to previous research, affect is considered as related both to personal feelings and to social controversies associated with a hazard. Expertise is related to personal knowledge (laypersons vs. experts) as well as to objective knowledge (targets well vs. poorly known to science). The direct comparison of the input from personal and objective ignorance into the inverse relation has not been investigated previously. It was found that affect invoked by a hazard guides general but not specific judgments of its benefits and risks. Technical expertise helps to avoid simplified evaluations of consequences as long as they are well known to science. For new, poorly understood hazards (e.g., stem cell research), expertise does not protect from the perception of the inverse relation between benefits and risks.     

Perceptions of Ecological Risk Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Infestations in Banff and Kootenay National Parks of Canada

Western Canada is experiencing an unprecedented outbreak of the mountain pine beetle (MPB). The MPB has the potential to impact some of Canada's national parks by affecting park ecosystems and the visitor experience. Controls have been initiated in some parks to lessen the impacts and to prevent the beetle from spreading beyond park boundaries. We examine the perception of ecological risk associated with MPB in two of Canada's national parks, the factors affecting perceptions of risk, and the influence of risk judgments on support for controlling MPB outbreaks in national parks. Data were collected using two studies of park visitors: a mail survey in 2003 and an onsite survey in 2005. The MPB was rated as posing a greater risk to the health and productivity of park ecosystems than anthropogenic hazards and other natural disturbance agents. Visitors who were familiar with MPB rated the ecological and visitor experience impacts as negative, unacceptable, and eliciting negative emotion. Knowledge and residency were the most consistent predictors of risk judgments. Of knowledge, risk, and demographic variables, only sex and risk to ecosystem domains influenced support for controlling the MPB in national parks. Implications for managing MPB in national parks, visitor education, and ecological integrity are discussed.     

The Causal Sequence of Risk Communication in the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment

A model of public perception and response to communication about natural hazards risk was constructed. It was estimated on data from samples of households in three communities at risk in the Parkfield earthquake prediction experiment. Estimated model parameters revealed consistent conclusions. Communicated risk information that was reinforced through additional communications and/or social cues precipitated an interactive personal search for more information; personal definitions of risk and what to do emerged; and these social constructions directed how the public responded. Perceived risk only indirectly impacted public action through information searching. This suggests that searching behavior should intervene between perception of risk and response in the theory of public risk communication.     

Fishing in a Polluted Estuary: Fishing Behavior, Fish Consumption, and Potential Risk

People make subjective judgments about hazards relying on what they know and feel. These risk perceptions may be based on accurate or inaccurate information and are often optimistically biased. The existence of uncertainties in the evaluation of many environmental hazards effects how risks are perceived. This paper examines fish consumption and risk perception of urban fishermen in the New York/New Jersey estuary, in areas where there were consumption advisories. We interviewed 318 fishermen and crabbers in the Arthur Kill, Raritan Bay, and New Jersey shore. Fish were eaten an average of at least four times per month in all regions, but fishermen in the Arthur Kill fished most frequently, averaging over eight times per month. Although 60% of fishermen and crabbers in the Arthur Kill reported hearing warnings about consuming fish caught in these waters, 70% of fishermen and 76% of crabbers said they ate their catch. Significantly fewer fishermen in the Bay and Shore regions had heard warnings (28% and 30%, respectively), and more reported consuming their catch (88% and 82%, respectively). In all regions, most people thought that the fish were safe to eat, many believing they were "fresher" than store bought fish. Thus, most people ignored the consumption advisories in effect for these waters. Some of these people are consuming high quantities of fish and crabs, and thus are exposed to potentially deleterious levels of contaminants. In general, people failed to consider the possibility of chronic effects and did not perceive that this enjoyable, familiar pastime could be hazardous. Further, fishermen generally had great confidence in their own knowledge, which proved to be inaccurate in many cases, and often expressed distrust in the information source (government). Clearly, simply issuing consumption advisories is insufficient to promote risk-reducing behavior.     

Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions

Laypeople's perceptions of health and safety risks have been widely studied, but only a few studies have addressed perceptions of ecological hazards. We assembled a list of 39 attributes of ecological hazards from the literatures on comparative risk assessment, ecological health, environmental conservation and management, environmental psychology, and risk perception. In Study 1, 125 laypeople evaluated 83 hazards on subsets of this attribute set. Factor analysis of attribute ratings (averaged over participants) revealed six oblique factors: ecological impacts, human impacts, human benefits, aesthetic impacts, scientific understanding, and controllability. These factors predicted mean judgments of overall riskiness, ecological riskiness, acceptability, and regulatory strictness. In Study 2, 30 laypeople each evaluated 34 hazards on 17 attributes and 3 dependent variables. Aggregate-level factor analysis of these data replicated the appropriate portion of the factor solution and yielded similar regression results. Parallel analyses at the individual-participant level yielded factors that explained less variance in judgments of overall riskiness, ecological riskiness, and acceptability. However, the decrease in explanatory power was much less than is often reported for disaggregate-level analyses of psychometric data. This discrepancy illustrates the importance of distinguishing between the level of analysis (aggregate versus disaggregate) and the focus of analysis (distinctions among hazards versus distinctions among participants). In a hybrid analysis, aggregate-level factor scores predicted individual participants' riskiness judgments reasonably well. Psychometric studies such as these provide a sound empirical basis for selecting attributes of ecological hazards for use in comparative risk assessment.     

Taxonomic Analysis of Perceived Risk: Modeling Individual and Group Perceptions Within Homogeneous Hazard Domains

Previous studies of risk perception have typically focused on the mean judgments of a group of people regarding the riskiness (or safety) of a diverse set of hazardous activities, substances, and technologies. This paper reports the results of two studies that take a different path. Study 1 investigated whether models within a single technological domain were similar to previous models based on group means and diverse hazards. Study 2 created a group taxonomy of perceived risk for only one technological domain, railroads, and examined whether the structure of that taxonomy corresponded with taxonomies derived from prior studies of diverse hazards. Results from Study 1 indicated that the importance of various risk characteristics in determining perceived risk differed across individuals and across hazards, but not so much as to invalidate the results of earlier studies based on group means and diverse hazards. In Study 2, the detailed analysis of railroad hazards produced a structure that had both important similarities to, and dissimilarities from, the structure obtained in prior research with diverse hazard domains. The data also indicated that railroad hazards are really quite diverse, with some approaching nuclear reactors in their perceived seriousness. These results suggest that information about the diversity of perceptions within a single domain of hazards could provide valuable input to risk-management decisions.     

Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge

Recent research indicates that social trust of those who manage a hazard is strongly correlated to judgments about the hazard's risk and benefits. The present study investigates the more specific question of “For which hazards is this?” It was postulated that when an individual lacks knowledge about a hazard, social trust of authorities managing the hazard determines perceived risks and benefits. On the other hand, when an individual has personal knowledge about a hazard and therefore does not need to rely on managing authorities, social trust is unrelated to judged risks and benefits. Participants (N = 91) assessed risks, benefits, and trust in managing authorities and personal knowledge associated with 25 hazardous technologies and activities. As expected, strong correlations between social trust and judged risks and benefits were observed for hazards about which people did not possess much knowledge. No significant correlations between social trust and judged risks and benefits were found for hazards about which people were knowledgeable. Results suggest that the lay public relies on social trust when making judgments of risks and benefits when personal knowledge about a hazard is lacking. Replicating findings of other studies, the present study also found negative correlations between perceived risks and perceived benefits. When social trust was controlled for, correlations between perceived risks and benefits diminished. Implications of the results for risk management are discussed.     

Applying a Health Behavior Theory to Explore the Influence of Information and Experience on Arsenic Risk Representations, Policy Beliefs, and Protective Behavior

The common sense model (CSM) shows how people process information to construct representations, or mental models, that guide responses to health threats. We applied the CSM to understand how people responded to information about arsenic-contaminated well water. Constructs included external information (arsenic level and information use), experience (perceived water quality and arsenic-related health effects), representations, safety judgments, opinions about policies to mitigate environmental arsenic, and protective behavior. Of 649 surveys mailed to private well users with arsenic levels exceeding the maximum contaminant level, 545 (84%) were analyzed. Structural equation modeling quantified CSM relationships. Both external information and experience had substantial effects on behavior. Participants who identified a water problem were more likely to reduce exposure to arsenic. However, about 60% perceived good water quality and 60% safe water. Participants with higher arsenic levels selected higher personal safety thresholds and 20% reported a lower arsenic level than indicated by their well test. These beliefs would support judgments of safe water. A variety of psychological and contextual factors may explain judgments of safe water when information suggested otherwise. Information use had an indirect effect on policy beliefs through understanding environmental causes of arsenic. People need concrete information about environmental risk at both personal and environmental-systems levels to promote a comprehensive understanding and response. The CSM explained responses to arsenic information and may have application to other environmental risks.     

QALYs versus WTP.

Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and willingness to pay (WTP) are alternative measures of the value of reductions in health risk that are often used in evaluating environmental, health, and safety practices. Although both methods are based on individual preferences, the underlying assumptions differ. The different bases yield systematically different conclusions about the relative value of reducing health and mortality risks to individuals that differ in age, preexisting health conditions, income, and other factors. The choice of which method to use depends on judgments about what constraints should be placed on individual preferences and what factors should be considered in aggregating preferences across people.     

Conventional Wisdom on Risk Communication and Evidence from a Field Experiment

A recent comprehensive review of the literature identified a number of facts and principles governing risk communication. This paper evaluates several of these propositions using recent evidence from a field experiment in communicating the risks from radon in homes. At this point in the research, data relates primarily to the response of risk perceptions to different information treatments and different personal characteristics. The effect of various causal factors is sensitive to the particular test of risk perception applied. No information treatment was clearly superior for all tasks. An important implication of these findings is that risk communicators must determine what specific task or tasks the information program should enable people to do.     

Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions

Expanding a limited empirical base on effects of risk comparisons, a pilot experiment explored how varying elements of such comparisons might influence public response. The scenario used was a hypothetical trial of an asbestos-installing firm for putting students and staff at a junior high school at "unreasonable risk," first used by Slovic et al. (1990). Study participants played the role of jurors in the trial, asked to rate the risk, the firm's guilt, whether it should be made liable for future health effects, whether the school should be occupied in its current condition, and whether the asbestos should be removed at a cost of 3 million dollars. Opportunity samples of New Jersey residents (n= 309) received information intended to vary four comparison attributes: number of dimensions of comparison; single versus multiple ways of expressing mortality; a narrative to explain and justify the risk comparison; and the hypothetical role of the participant (juror vs. parent). The dependent variable was a hazard scale constructed from four of the five postcomparison judgments. ANOVA found format variations swamped in their effect by concern about asbestos, with the absence of a narrative and the parental role being the only attributes that increased negative risk reactions. Multiple regression analyses found that multidimensionality, narrative, role, and the presence of any risk comparison at all had significant effects when these (plus death formats) were the only independent variables. However, only multidimensionality (which increased negative reactions) retained significance when asbestos concern, risk beliefs (no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen; any exposure leads to cancer), and demographic variables were added to the analysis. Concern and risk beliefs alone explained 33% of variance in hazard scores; adding demographics and risk comparison variables only raised explained variance to 36% (having children at home and being exposed to multidimensional risk comparisons raised scores; age and income lowered them). The results underline the potentially small effect of risk comparison information on risk views (at least between subjects), but offer some insight into aspects of message design left unexplored in empirical literature to date.     

Risk Perception and Experience: Hazard Personality Profiles and Individual Differences

The dominance of the "psychometric" paradigm and the consequent emphasis on personality profiles of hazards has resulted in little attention being given to individual variability in risk judgments. This study examines how far differences in experience of risk activities can explain individual variability in risk assessments. A questionnaire study (n = 172) was used to explore the relationships between experience and risk perceptions in relation to 16 risk activities. It was expected that these relationships would differ for voluntary and involuntary activities. Measures of experience included assessments of "impact" and "outcome" valence as well as "frequency." These three aspects of experience each related to risk assessment but their relationship depended on whether the risk experiences were voluntary or not. The results indicate the importance of developing more fine-grained ways of indexing risk experience.     

The Role of Society in Engineering Risk Analysis: A Capabilities-Based Approach

This article proposes a new conceptual framework in engineering risk analysis to account for the net impact of hazards on individuals in a society. It analyzes four limitations of prevailing approaches to risk analysis and suggests a way to overcome them. These limitations are a result of how societal impacts are characteristically accounted for and valued. Prevailing approaches typically focus too narrowly on the consequences of natural or man-made hazards, not accounting for the broader societal impacts of such hazards. Such approaches lack a uniform and consistent metric for accounting for the impact of the nonquantifiable consequences (like psychological trauma or societal impacts) and rely upon implicit and potentially inaccurate value judgments when evaluating risks. To overcome these limitations, we propose an alternative, Capabilities-Based Approach to the treatment of society in risk analysis. A similar approach is currently used by the United Nations to quantitatively measure the degree of development in countries around the world. In a Capabilities-Based Approach, the potential benefits and losses due to a hazard are measured and compared in a uniform way by using individual capabilities (functionings individuals are able, still able, or unable to achieve) as a metric. This Capabilities-Based Approach provides a foundation for identifying and quantifying the broader, complex societal consequences of hazards and is based on explicit, value judgments. The Capabilities-Based Approach can accommodate different methods or techniques for risk determination and for risk evaluation and can be used in assessing risk in diverse types of hazards (natural or man-made) and different magnitudes that range from minor to catastrophic. In addition, implementing a Capabilities-Based Approach contributes to the development of a single standard for public policy decision making, since a Capabilities-Based Approach is already in use in development economics and policy.     

Cognitive Components of Risk Ratings

This study examined what lay people mean when they judge the "risk" of activities that involve the potential for accidental fatalities (e.g., hang gliding, living near a nuclear reactor). A sample of German and American students rated the "overall risk" of 14 such activities and provided 3 fatality estimates: the number of fatalities in an "average year," the individual yearly fatality probability (or odds), and the number of fatalities in a "disastrous accident." Subjects' fatality estimates were reasonably accurate and only moderately influenced by attitudes towards nuclear energy. Individual fatality probability correlated most highly with intuitive risk ratings. Disaster estimates correlated positively with risk ratings for those activities that had a low fatality probability and a relatively high disaster potential. Annual average fatality rates did not correlate with risk ratings at all. These findings were interpreted in terms of a two-dimensional cognitive structure. Subjective notions of risk were determined primarily by the personal chance of death; for some activities, "disaster potential" played a secondary role in shaping risk perception.     

Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile

In this work we characterize risk perception in Chile, based on the psychometric paradigm, exploring the difference between perceived social and personal risk. For this purpose, we conducted a survey including 54 hazards, 16 risk attributes, and 3 risk constructs. The survey, divided into four parts, was administered to 508 residents of Santiago, Chile. Using factor analysis, three main factors, which accounted for 80% of the sample's variance, were identified: factor 1, commonly called "Dread Risk" in the literature, explained 37% of variance; factor 2, "Unknown Risk," explained 28%; and factor 3, which we called "Personal Effect," explained 15% of the variance. On average, individuals perceived themselves as less exposed to risk and with more control and knowledge about them than the general population. OLS regression models were used to test the association of perceived risk with the three main factors. For social risk, factor 1 had the greatest explanatory power, while factor 2 had a negative sign. For personal risk, only factors 2 and 3 were significant, with factor 3 having the greatest explanatory power. Risk denial (defined as the difference between perceived personal and social risk) was associated with factors 1 and 2 only, with factor 2 having a negative sign. The difference between desired and actual regulation levels proved positive for all hazards, thus indicating that Chileans are dissatisfied with the current regulation level for all the hazards analyzed. The comparison of data at the aggregate and at the individual subject's level suggests that while the aggregate analysis overestimates the magnitude of the correlations it still reflects the tendency of the individual responses.     

Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research

Numerous studies and practical experiences with risk have demonstrated the importance of risk perceptions for people's behavior. In this narrative review, we describe and reflect upon some of the lines of research that we feel have been important in helping us understand the factors and processes that shape people's risk perceptions. In our review, we propose that much of the research on risk perceptions to date can be grouped according to three dominant perspectives and, thus, approaches to study design; they are: the characteristics of hazards, the characteristics of risk perceivers, and the application of heuristics to inform risk judgments. In making these distinctions, we also highlight what we see as outstanding challenges for researchers and practitioners. We also highlight a few new research questions that we feel warrant attention.     

Do People Believe Combined Hazards Can Present Synergistic Risks?

The risk attributable to some hazard combinations can be greater than the sum of the risk attributable to each constituent hazard. Such "synergistic risks" occur in several domains, can vary in magnitude, and often have harmful, even life-threatening, outcomes. Yet, the extent to which people believe that combined hazards can present synergistic risks is unclear. We present the results of two experimental studies aimed at addressing this issue. In both studies, participants examined synergistic and additive risk scenarios, and judged whether these were possible. The results indicate that the proportion of people who believe that synergistic risks can occur declines linearly as the magnitude of the synergistic risk increases. We also find that people believe, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, that certain hazard combinations are more likely to present additive or weakly synergistic risks than synergistic risks of higher magnitudes. Furthermore, our findings did not vary as a simple function of hazard domain (health vs. social), but varied according to the characteristics of the specific hazards considered (specified vs. unspecified drug combinations). These results suggest that many people's beliefs concerning the risk attributable to combined hazards could lead them to underestimate the threat posed by combinations that present synergistic risks, particularly for hazard combinations that present higher synergistic risk magnitudes. These findings highlight a need to develop risk communications that can effectively increase awareness of synergistic risks.     

Risk Perception,Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors

Understanding public risk perceptions and their underlying processes is important in order to learn more about the way people interpret and respond to hazardous emergency events. Direct experience with an involuntary hazard has been found to heighten the perceived risk of experiencing the same hazard and its consequences in the future, but it remains unclear if cross‐over effects are possible (i.e., experience with one hazard influencing perceived risk for other hazards also). Furthermore, the impact of objective risk and country of residence on perceived risk is not well understood. As part of the BeSeCu (Behavior, Security, and Culture) Project, a sample of 1,045 survivors of emergencies from seven European countries (i.e., Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, Sweden, Spain, Turkey, and Italy) was drawn. Results revealed heightened perceived risk for emergency events (i.e., domestic and public fires, earthquakes, floods, and terrorist attacks) when the event had been experienced previously plus some evidence of cross‐over effects, although these effects were not so strong. The largest country differences in perceived risk were observed for earthquakes, but this effect was significantly reduced by taking into account the objective earthquake risk. For fires, floods, terrorist attacks, and traffic accidents, only small country differences in perceived risk were found. Further studies including a larger number of countries are welcomed.