Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology

Risk perceptions of a series of biotechnology applications were examined in a public (nonexpert) sample and an expert sample. Compared with the experts, the public perceived all biotechnology applications as more risky. Both groups perceived food-related applications to be riskier than medical applications. Compared with the public, experts perceived both food and medical applications as less harmful and more useful. Experts also judged the risks posed from medical biotechnology applications as more familiar and acknowledged by people and science. Lay estimates of the risk of food applications were predicted by potential harm, potential benefits, science knowledge, and familiarity; experts' estimates were predicted only by harm and benefits. Lay estimates of the risk of medical applications were predicted by potential harm; experts' estimates were predicted by potential benefits, number and type of people exposed, and science knowledge. We discuss the implications of the results for risk communication about and management of different types of biotechnologies.     

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.     

Examining the Relationship Between Affect and Implicit Associations: Implications for Risk Perception

It has been suggested that affect may play an important role in risk perception. Slovic et al. argued that people make use of the “affect heuristic” when assessing risks because it is easier and more efficient to rely on spontaneous affective reactions than to analyze all available information. In the present studies, a single category implicit association test (SC‐IAT) to measure associations evoked by different hazards was employed. In the first study, we tested the extent to which the SC‐IAT corresponds to the theoretical construct of affect in a risk framework. Specifically, we found that the SC‐IAT correlates with other explicit measures that claim to measure affect, as well as with a measure of trust, but not with a measure that captures a different construct (subjective knowledge). In the second study, we addressed the question of whether hazards that vary along the dread dimension of the psychometric paradigm also differ in the affect they evoke. The results of the SC‐IAT indicated that a high‐dread hazard (nuclear power) elicits negative associations. Moreover, the high‐dread hazard evoked more negative associations than a medium‐dread hazard (hydroelectric power). In contrast, a nondread hazard (home appliances) led to positive associations. The results of our study highlight the importance of affect in shaping attitudes and opinions toward risks. The results further suggest that implicit measures may provide valuable insight into people's risk perception above and beyond explicit measures.     

Risk Perception and Movies: A Study of Availability as a Factor in Risk Perception

Media effects on risk perception have often been explained by Tversky and Kahneman's availability principle, but research has not consistently supported it. What seem like media effects based on availability may be effects of new information. In an experimental study, entertainment movies depicting dramatic risk events were shown. They were found to produce no average effects on perceived risks in spite of large mood effects and being perceived as credible. We found, however, evidence of idiosyncratic effects of the movies, that is, people reacted immediately after the movies with enhanced  or  diminished risk beliefs. These reactions had faded after 10 days. Implications for the availability heuristic and risk perception are discussed.     

The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?

This paper examines the relationship between perceived risk and experience. This research addresses the processes by which people learn about risk and choose among real life prospects with associated uncertainties, risks and benefits. By comparing the impact of acute risk events with that of chronic risk events on public perception of risk during and after the events, this research focuses on the learning processes that characterize what kinds of risk events alter the perception of risk. Comparing materialized hazards at existing facilities with the risks associated with potential facilities, this research addresses risk choices among real life prospects. This study uses a classic pre-post quasi-experimental design. Surveys conducted in the Spring of 1992 on perceived and acceptable risk in Odessa and La Porte, Texas were conducted prior to risk events. Respondents from that survey were re-interviewed in the Spring of 1993 after the risk events to form a panel design. This paper analyzes the affect of risk events on perceived risk and the implications of these experiences for public policy concerning technological risk. The empirical results suggest that the social processes that construct and maintain risk in the public eye are at least as important as, if not more important than, the physical and psychological dimensions of risk.     

Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk

Relatively little attention has been paid to the role of human perception and judgment in ecological risk management. This paper attempts to characterize perceived ecological risk, using the psychometric paradigm developed in the domain of human health risk perception. The research began by eliciting a set of scale characteristics and risk items (e.g., technologies, actions, events, beliefs) from focus group participants. Participants in the main study were 68 university students who completed a survey instrument that elicited ratings for each of 65 items on 30 characteristic scales and one scale regarding general risk to natural environments. The results are presented in terms of mean responses over individuals for each scale and item combination. Factor analyses show that five factors characterize the judgment data. These have been termed: impact on species, human benefits, impact on humans, avoidability, and knowledge of impacts. The factor results correspond with initial expectations and provide a plausible characterization of judgments regarding ecological risk. Some comparisons of mean responses for selected individual items are also presented.     

Why Study Risk Perception?

Studies of risk perception examine the opinions people express when they are asked, in various ways, to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies. This research aims to aid risk analysis and societal decision making by (i) improving methods for eliciting opinions about risk, (ii) providing a basis for understanding and anticipating public responses to hazards, and (iii) improving the communication of risk information among laypeople, technical experts, and policy makers.     

An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma.

A study (N=198) was conducted to examine hypotheses derived from an emotion-based model of stigma responses to radiation sources. A model of stigma susceptibility is proposed in which affective reactions and cognitive worldviews activate predispositions to appraise and experience events in systematic ways that result in the generation of negative emotion, risk perceptions, and stigma responses. Results of structural equation modeling supported the hypotheses. Radiation sources that scored higher on a measure of stigma were included in the analyses (i.e., nuclear power plants, radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, radiation from nuclear weapons testing). Individual differences in negative reactivity and worldviews were associated with the strength of emotional appraisals that were associated, in turn, with negative emotion toward stigmatized radiation sources. As hypothesized, the model fit better with perceived risk as a function of negative emotion rather than vice versa. Finally, a measure of stigma was associated with negative emotion and, to a lesser extent, with risk perceptions. Risk communication about stigmatized objects may benefit from a more complete understanding of how affective and emotional reactions are constructed and the routes through which they affect responses and behaviors.     

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.     

Risk Perception and Technological Development at a Societal Level

This article tests the hypothesis that the exposure to the threat to societies posed by the introduction of new technologies is associated with a normalization of risk perception. Data collected in 2000 by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) on environmental issues were used to explore this hypothesis. Representative samples from 25 countries were employed to assess the national levels of perceived threat to the environment associated with a series of technologies and activities. These values were correlated with economic indicators (mainly from the World Bank) of the diffusion of each of the technologies or activities in each country. Results indicate a negative association of risk perception with the level of technological prevalence (societal normalization effect) and a positive association with the rate of growth of the technology (societal sensitivity effect). These results indicate that the most acute levels of perceived environmental risk are found in those countries where the level of technological prevalence is low but where there has recently been substantial technological development. Environmental awareness is a mediator of the relationship between risk perception and the indices of technological diffusion. This result means that: (1) societal normalization of risk is not a direct consequence of prevalence of the technology, but is driven by awareness of technological development and that (2) societal sensitivity to risk is associated with lower levels of environmental awareness.     

Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk

Individuals’ perceptions and their interpersonal communication about a risk event, or risk talk, can play a significant role in the formation of societal responses to the risk event. As they formulate their risk opinions and speak to others, risk information can circulate through their social networks and contribute to the construction of their risk information environment. In the present study, Japanese citizens’ risk perception and risk talk were examined in the context of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear radiation risk. We hypothesized and found that the risk information environment and risk literacy (i.e., competencies to understand and use risk information) interact to influence their risk perception and risk talk. In particular, risk literacy tends to stabilize people's risk perceptions and their risk communications. Nevertheless, there were some subtle differences between risk perception and communication, suggesting the importance of further examination of interpersonal risk communication and its role in the societal responses to risk events.     

Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments

This paper examines lay and expert perceptions of the ecological risks associated with a range of human activities that could adversely affect water resource environments. It employs the psychometric paradigm pioneered in characterizing perceptions of human health risks, which involves surveys to obtain judgments from subjects about risk items in terms of several important characteristics of the risks. The paper builds on a previous study that introduced ecological risk perception. This second study employs a larger, more diverse sample, a more focused topic area, and comparisons between lay and expert judgments. The results confirm that a small set of underlying factors explain a great deal of variability in lay judgments about ecological risks. These have been termed Ecological Impact, Human Benefits, Controllability , and Knowledge. The results are useful in explaining subjects' judgments of the general riskiness of, and need for regulation of, various risk items. The results also indicate several differences and areas of agreement among the lay and expert samples that point to potential key issues in future ecological risk management efforts for water resources.     

Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy1,2

This paper looks critically at the emergence and present status of risk analysis with the aim of assessing its usefulness for policy decisions on risk regulation and the acceptability of risk-bearing innovations. The authors adopt a personal narrative to illustrate their own involvement in risk research and to comment on empirical trends that have resulted in the current fashion for risk workshops. The second part of the paper confronts specific issues in risk research. These are not new problems-indeed several of the questions asked have been taken directly from a list used to structure a recent risk seminar; but the stand taken here is rather less conciliatory than is usual when these issues are discussed. The pessimistic message of this paper is that risk research, especially in the area of risk perception, is being used as a panacea with which to attempt to remedy what are essentially societal and political matters. Risk research is being used as a tool in a discourse which is not concerned with risks per se, nor with the cognitive processes by which people misperceive the risks of new technologies, but whose hidden agenda is the legitimacy of decision-making institutions and the equitable distribution of hazards and benefits. The authors take a subjectivist view, not just of risk but in general, and query the natural science approach to risk perception, with its assumption that universal dimensions of risk perception can be discovered and used in policy-making and setting regulatory standards. Although it is possible to collect subjective data on the wider meanings that risks and benefits associated with technological innovations have for lay publics, the interpretation and recombination of these data into useful policy guidelines is seen as fraught with technical and, above all, political problems.     

GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception

Public opposition to genetically modified (GM) food and crops is widely interpreted as the result of the public's misperception of the risks. With scientific assessment pointing to no unique risks from GM crops and foods, a strategy of accurate risk communication from trusted sources has been advocated. This is based on the assumption that the benefits of GM crops and foods are self-evident. Informed by the interpretation of some qualitative interviews with lay people, we use data from the Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology to explore the hypothesis that it is not so much the perception of risks as the absence of benefits that is the basis of the widespread rejection of GM foods and crops by the European public. Some respondents perceive both risks and benefits, and may be trading off these attributes along the lines of a rational choice model. However, for others, one attribute-benefit-appears to dominate their judgments: the lexicographic heuristic. For these respondents, their perception of risk is of limited importance in the formation of attitudes toward GM food and crops. The implication is that the absence of perceived benefits from GM foods and crops calls into question the relevance of risk communication strategies for bringing about change in public opinion.     

Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment

Previous research has evaluated public risk perception and response to a natural hazards in various settings; however, most of these studies were conducted either with a single scenario or after a natural disaster struck. To better understand the dynamic relationships among affect, risk perception, and behavioral intentions related to natural disasters, the current study implements a simulation scenario with escalating weather intensity, and includes a natural experiment allowing comparison of public response before and after a severe tornado event with extensive coverage by the national media. The current study also manipulated the display of warning information, and investigated whether the warning system display format influences public response. Results indicate that (1) affect, risk perception, and behavioral intention escalated as weather conditions deteriorated, (2) responses at previous stages predicted responses at subsequent stages of storm progression, and (3) negative affect predicted risk perception. Moreover, risk perception and behavioral intention were heightened after exposure to the media coverage of an actual tornado disaster. However, the display format manipulation did not influence behavioral responses. The current study provides insight regarding public perception of predisaster warnings and the influence of exposure to media coverage of an actual disaster event.     

Risk Perception and New Age Beliefs

This is a study of risk perception in relation to New Age (NA) beliefs, including traditional folk superstition and belief in paranormal phenomena, as well as use of alternative healing practices. Data were also obtained on trust dimensions and on personality and psychopathology variables, as well as religious involvement. It was found that four factors accounted for the investigated NA beliefs, which were termed higher consciousness beliefs, denial of analytic knowledge, traditional superstition, and belief in the physical reality of the soul. NA beliefs were strongly and positively related to religious involvement, and negatively to educational level. These beliefs were also positively related to maladjustment and to concerns over tampering with nature. In regression analyses, it was found that NA beliefs explained about 15% of the variance of perceived risk, and that the most powerful explanatory factors were higher consciousness beliefs and beliefs in paranormal phenomena. Traditional superstition and use of healing practices did not contribute to explaining perceived risk.     

Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High- and Low-Numerate Individuals

Utilizing a random sample from the general population ( N = 257), we examined the effect of the radon risk ladder on risk perception, as qualified by respondents' numeracy. The radon risk ladder provides comparative risk information about the radon equivalent of smoking risk. We compared a risk ladder providing smoking risk information with a risk ladder not providing this information. A 2 (numeracy; high, low) × 3 (risk level; high, medium, low) × 2 (smoking risk comparison: with/without) between subjects experimental design was used. A significant ( p < 0.045) three-way interaction between format, risk level, and numeracy was identified. Participants with low numeracy skills, as well as participants with high numeracy skills, generally distinguished between low, medium, and high risk levels when the risk ladder with comparative smoking risk information was presented. When the risk ladder without the comparative information about the smoking risk was presented, low-numerate individuals differentiated between risk levels to a much lesser extent than high-numerate individuals did. These results provide empirical evidence that the risk ladder can be a useful tool in enabling people to interpret various risk levels. Additionally, these results allow us to conclude that providing comparative information within a risk ladder is particularly helpful to the understanding of different risk levels by people with low numeracy skills.     

Aviation Risk Perception: A Comparison Between Experts and Novices

This article describes an exploratory investigation of the risk perceptions of experts and novices in relation to helicopter operations, under conditions where the participants are matched on various characteristics previously found to affect perceptions, such as demographic, gender, and background factors. The study reports considerable evidence of perceptual differences between the two participant groups (i.e., expert pilots and candidate pilots). We find that the experts' perceptions of relative risks are more veridical, in terms of their higher correlation with the true relative frequencies. A significant positive correlation between the flight hours and the contextual risk-taking tendency is also shown, leading the experienced pilots' choices toward risky alternatives in scenarios--a potential result of their overconfidence based on superior task performance. Possible explanations are offered for the findings and potential avenues for future research are identified.     

Risk Perception Among Smokers: A Qualitative Study

The aim of this qualitative study is to identify the dimensions people used to assess the risk of smoking and then compare them with those used by health professionals in primary healthcare. Five discussion groups were conducted. The field work was carried out in Barcelona (Spain), from February 2005 to January 2006. Data were analyzed following a semantic‐thematic categorical content analysis (ACC‐ts). Results showed that people tend to employ stereotypical discourses when evaluating the risk of smoking. Similarly, they reassess the risk in the context of their life experience and incorporate new nuances to the arguments sustaining their behavior. Once this reassessment takes place, the decision to continue smoking emerges, and smokers come up with additional arguments justifying their habit (i.e., age, benefits related to costs). Professionals are aware of this process and its multidimensional nature. Nevertheless, their discourse loses this multidimensional feature when discussing the strategies they use at smoking cessation interventions. This qualitative study increases the understanding of various meanings that people attribute to their life experience. These assumptions may be useful for developing health practices that are closer to people. As a practical utility of these results, it would be interesting to apply a preliminary assessment of the different meanings that people attribute to smoking from their life context in risk communication.     

An Existential Approach to Risk Perception

Existential, or existential-phenomenological philosophical approaches to the social psychology of risk perception provide a novel framework for understanding issues that are common to all humanity, such as fear of death, freedom and responsibility, isolation and meaninglessness, as these anxieties are a function of existing, or being-in-the-world. These fundamental anxieties can be related theoretically to the ways people perceive risks within social and cultural milieus, and can also be used practically within case studies, as demonstrated in the three examples presented, which examine perceptions of climate change, food-related risks, and environmental awareness via a mixture of quantitative and qualitative techniques. The discussion focuses on the possible insights that can be gained from taking an existential perspective on risk perception, and relates notions of contemporary technologically-oriented societies to the existential challenges faced by individuals and societies in the contemporary world.