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.     

Factors in Risk Perception

Risk perception is a phenomenon in search of an explanation. Several approaches are discussed in this paper. Technical risk estimates are sometimes a potent factor in accounting for perceived risk, but in many important applications it is not. Heuristics and biases, mainly availability, account for only a minor portion of risk perception, and media contents have not been clearly implicated in risk perception. The psychometric model is probably the leading contender in the field, but its explanatory value is only around 20% of the variance of raw data. Adding a factor of "unnatural risk" considerably improves the psychometric model. Cultural Theory, on the other hand, has not been able to explain more than 5–10% of the variance of perceived risk, and other value scales have similarly failed. A model is proposed in which attitude, risk sensitivity, and specific fear are used as explanatory variables; this model seems to explain well over 30–40% of the variance and is thus more promising than previous approaches. The model offers a different type of psychological explanation of risk perception, and it has many implications, e.g., a different approach to the relationship between attitude and perceived risk, as compared with the usual cognitive analysis of attitude.     

A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship

Several recent studies have identified the significant role social trust in regulatory organizations plays in the public acceptance of various technologies and activities. In a cross‐cultural investigation, the current work explores empirically the relationship between social trust in management authorities and the degree of public acceptability of hazards for individuals residing in either developed or emerging Latin American economies using confirmatory rather than exploratory techniques. Undergraduates in Mexico, Brazil, and Chile and the United States and Spain assessed trust in regulatory authorities, public acceptance, personal knowledge, and the risks and benefits for 23 activities and technological hazards. Four findings were encountered. (i) In Latin American nations trust in regulatory entities was strongly and significantly (directly as well as indirectly) linked with the public's acceptance of any activity or technology. In developed countries trust and acceptability are essentially linked indirectly (through perceived risk and perceived benefit). (ii) Lack of knowledge strengthened the magnitude and statistical significance of the trust‐acceptability relationship in both developed and developing countries. (iii) For high levels of claimed knowledge, the impact on the trust‐acceptability relationship varied depending upon the origin of the sample. (iv) Confirmatory analysis revealed the relative importance of perceived benefit over perceived risk in meditating the trust‐acceptability causal chain.     

Developing a Subject-Derived Terminology to Describe Perceptions of Chemicals in Foods

Risk perception may be influenced by a number of factors, such as unfamiliarity, lack of control, perceived consequences, and hazards being seen as catastrophic and having risk for future generations. Risk perception researchers have typically used such investigator-selected characteristics to assess hazards. In the first study reported here, the repertory grid method was used to elicit the terminology that subjects ( n = 30) use to distinguish between 30 different chemicals. The data were submitted to generalized Procrustes analysis. The first principal axis of the resulting consensus plot separated the chemicals ranging from "poisonous or toxic,""harmful or dangerous," and "sounds negative" at one end, to "positive effect on health,""often present in food nowadays," and "sounds positive" at the other end. The second principal axis ranged from "familiar with or knowledge of" and "chemical" to "natural." A second study ( n = 226) was carried out to look at the general validity of the results of the repertory grid interviews using a fixed questionnaire. The data were submitted to principal components analysis and internal preference mapping. The first principal component ranged from "safe" and "healthy" at one end, to "poisonous" and "harmful" at the other end. The chemicals also separated in terms of "familiar,""chemical," and "natural." All three methods of data collection and analysis yield essentially similar results.     

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.     

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.     

Risk Perceptions of Offshore Workers on UK Oil and Gas Platforms

Knowledge of the workforce's risk perceptions and attitudes to safety is necessary for the development of a safety culture, where each person accepts responsibility for working safely. The ACSNI Human Factors report stresses the importance of assessing workforce perceptions of risk to achieve a proper safety culture. Risk perception research has been criticized for insufficient analysis of the causal relationships between risk factors and perceived risk. The present study reports some of the factors which predicted risk perception in a sample of 622 employees from six UKCS offshore oil installations who completed a 15-section questionnaire. This paper focuses on the accuracy of workers' risk perceptions and what underlying factors predict the perception of personal risk from both major and minor hazards.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food-Related Hazards

The psychometric approach developed by Slovic and his co-workers has been effectively used to assess risk perceptions associated with different food-related hazards. However, further examination (using questionnaire data and partial correlation techniques) has indicated that technological hazards are highly differentiated from lifestyle hazards, in terms of both hazard control and knowledge about the hazard. Optimistic bias was also seen to vary between hazards. Further research has focused on a particular hazard, genetic engineering. Risk perceptions associated with genetic engineering are underpinned by ethical concern and questions relating to perceived need for the technology, as well as perceptions of risk or harm. However, increasing the specificity of hazard stimuli was found to alter the factor structure of underlying risk perceptions. The utility of preference mapping procedures in determining individual differences in trust in risk regulators is also discussed.     

Perceived Risks of Conventional and Organic Produce: Pesticides, Pathogens, and Natural Toxins

Public risk perceptions and demand for safer food are important factors shaping agricultural production practices in the United States. Despite documented food safety concerns, little attempt has been made to elicit consumers' subjective risk judgments for a range of food safety hazards or to identify factors most predictive of perceived food safety risks. In this study, over 700 conventional and organic fresh produce buyers in the Boston area were surveyed for their perceived food safety risks. Survey results showed that consumers perceived relatively high risks associated with the consumption and production of conventionally grown produce compared with other public health hazards. For example, conventional and organic food buyers estimated the median annual fatality rate due to pesticide residues on conventionally grown food to be about 50 per million and 200 per million, respectively, which is similar in magnitude to the annual mortality risk from motor vehicle accidents in the United States. Over 90% of survey respondents also perceived a reduction in pesticide residue risk associated with substituting organically grown produce for conventionally grown produce, and nearly 50% perceived a risk reduction due to natural toxins and microbial pathogens. Multiple regression analyses indicate that only a few factors are consistently predictive of higher risk perceptions, including feelings of distrust toward regulatory agencies and the safety of the food supply. A variety of factors were found to be significant predictors of specific categories of food hazards, suggesting that consumers may view food safety risks as dissimilar from one another. Based on study findings, it is recommended that future agricultural policies and risk communication efforts utilize a comparative risk approach that targets a range of food safety hazards.     

Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk

Recent research finds that perceived risk is closely associated with race and gender. In surveys of the American public a subset of white males stand out for their uniformly low perceptions of environmental health risks, while most nonwhite and nonmale respondents reveal higher perceived risk. Such findings have been attributed to the advantageous position of white males in American social life. This article explores the linked possibility that this demographic pattern is driven not simply by the social advantages or disadvantages embodied in race or gender, but by the subjective experience of vulnerability and by sociopolitical evaluations pertaining to environmental injustice. Indices of environmental injustice and social vulnerability were developed as part of a U.S. National Risk Survey (n= 1,192) in order to examine their effect on perceived risk. It was found that those who regarded themselves as vulnerable and supported belief statements consistent with the environmental justice thesis offered higher risk ratings across a range of hazards. Multivariate analysis indicates that our measures of vulnerability and environmental injustice predict perceived risk but do not account for all of the effects of race and gender. The article closes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for further work on vulnerability and risk, risk communication, and risk management practices generally.     

The influence of mapped hazards on risk beliefs: a proximity-based modeling approach

Interview findings suggest perceived proximity to mapped hazards influences risk beliefs when people view environmental hazard maps. For dot maps, four attributes of mapped hazards influenced beliefs: hazard value, proximity, prevalence, and dot patterns. In order to quantify the collective influence of these attributes for viewers’ perceived or actual map locations, we present a model to estimate proximity‐based hazard or risk (PBH) and share study results that indicate how modeled PBH and map attributes influenced risk beliefs. The randomized survey study among 447 university students assessed risk beliefs for 24 dot maps that systematically varied by the four attributes. Maps depicted water test results for a fictitious hazardous substance in private residential wells and included a designated “you live here” location. Of the nine variables that assessed risk beliefs, the numerical susceptibility variable was most consistently and strongly related to map attributes and PBH. Hazard value, location in or out of a clustered dot pattern, and distance had the largest effects on susceptibility. Sometimes, hazard value interacted with other attributes, for example, distance had stronger effects on susceptibility for larger than smaller hazard values. For all combined maps, PBH explained about the same amount of variance in susceptibility as did attributes. Modeled PBH may have utility for studying the influence of proximity to mapped hazards on risk beliefs, protective behavior, and other dependent variables. Further work is needed to examine these influences for more realistic maps and representative study samples.     

Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study

Although public perceptions of food-related hazards receive much media comment and debate, the research literature on such perceptions is sparse and piecemeal. In the reported study, 216 people completed a questionnaire relating to their perceptions of the "risk characteristics" of potential hazards associated with various aspects of food production and food consumption. Responses were examined via principal-components analysis to obtain a structural representation of risk perception of the kind provided by Fischhoff, Slovic, and their colleagues in their seminal psychometric work.^(1,2) A three-component solution accounting for 87% of the variance was obtained, with the dimensions labeled as "severity,""unknown," and "number of people exposed." The findings also yielded information pointing to evidence of the phenomenon of unrealistic optimism. We conclude that our findings offer a useful base upon which further in-depth research integrating different perspectives on risk perception with respect to food-related hazards may be developed.     

Worry and Risk Perception

Risk perception is sometimes measured by means of judgments about worry, sometimes as perceived risk more directly. However, perceived level of risk calls for a more intellectual judgment and worry tends to refer to emotional reactions. These two are therefore not the same and need not be strongly correlated. Results reported here show that perceived risk and worry are indeed weakly correlated, both for generalized worry and for more specific measures of worry matched with the same hazard as risk ratings. A distinction is suggested between cognitive, abstract hazards and concrete, sensory hazards, with implications for the worry-perceived risk relationship. It was furthermore found by means of cluster analysis that there were groups of subject displaying different dynamics of risk and worry.     

What's Wrong with Risk Matrices?

Risk matrices—tables mapping "frequency" and "severity" ratings to corresponding risk priority levels—are popular in applications as diverse as terrorism risk analysis, highway construction project management, office building risk analysis, climate change risk management, and enterprise risk management (ERM). National and international standards (e.g., Military Standard 882C and AS/NZS 4360:1999) have stimulated adoption of risk matrices by many organizations and risk consultants. However, little research rigorously validates their performance in actually improving risk management decisions. This article examines some mathematical properties of risk matrices and shows that they have the following limitations. (a) Poor Resolution . Typical risk matrices can correctly and unambiguously compare only a small fraction (e.g., less than 10%) of randomly selected pairs of hazards. They can assign identical ratings to quantitatively very different risks ("range compression"). (b) Errors . Risk matrices can mistakenly assign higher qualitative ratings to quantitatively smaller risks. For risks with negatively correlated frequencies and severities, they can be "worse than useless," leading to worse-than-random decisions. (c) Suboptimal Resource Allocation . Effective allocation of resources to risk-reducing countermeasures cannot be based on the categories provided by risk matrices. (d) Ambiguous Inputs and Outputs . Categorizations of severity cannot be made objectively for uncertain consequences. Inputs to risk matrices (e.g., frequency and severity categorizations) and resulting outputs (i.e., risk ratings) require subjective interpretation, and different users may obtain opposite ratings of the same quantitative risks. These limitations suggest that risk matrices should be used with caution, and only with careful explanations of embedded judgments.     

Phases of Earthquake Experience: A Case Study of the June 2000 South Iceland Earthquakes

A case study of the impact factors of stress and relief in the wake of the south Iceland earthquakes in 2000 is presented. By applying axial coding analysis, the isolated concurrent and interplaying sociostructural impact factors were added sequentially to a time axis based on interviews with sufferers, as well as observations and a survey analysis. The data were obtained through a field survey using standardized questionnaires as well as numerous personal in-depth interviews, photographs, and field notes. An exposition of the different phases of the earthquake experience is presented, reflecting the victims' conscious and/or unconscious efforts to bring life back to "normal," though constantly burdened by a perceived lack of understanding of their experiences by "outsiders." The process was characterized by six main stress factors and three noteworthy mitigating factors. The findings are important for vulnerability and risk assessment as well as for planning pre-, pro-, and postearthquake reactions in the affected areas.     

Judgments of Personal and Environmental Risks of Consumer Products—Do they Differ?

Many psychometric studies have investigated judgments concerning personal risks from technologies, activities or consumer products, but only a few studies have included judgments of risk to the environment. Thus, little is known about this aspect of environmental risk perception, and whether it differs from personal risk perception. This study investigates risk judgments for 30 consumer products of various types such as herbal remedies, mobile telephones, genetically engineered drugs, or garden pesticides. A survey was conducted in two German cities: Leipzig and West Berlin. In total, 408 subjects evaluated the consumer products with regard to personal and environmental risk (and other risk-related aspects) and whether they would recommend the product to others. The findings show statistically significant differences between the mean values of perceived personal risk and environmental risk for most products. Despite these differences, the rank order of mean personal risk and environmental risk judgments for the products is quite similar. However, separate analyses for each product reveal that correlations between perceived personal and environmental risk vary strongly across products. Multiple regression analyses with personal and environmental risk judgments as predictors and product recommendation as criterion, run separately for each consumer product, show that it is mainly the judgment of perceived personal risk that explains product recommendation. Perceived risk to the environment adds little explanatory power. The study also explores differences in judgments of personal and environmental risk with regard to two sociodemographic variables: location (former East Germany vs. West Germany) and gender. Differences in both types of risk judgments are found with regard to location but not for gender.