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.     

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.     

Effects of Context and Feelings on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food

Recently, there has been a surge of interest in the role of feelings in framing perceptions and decisions about risk, yet no study has specifically examined the impact of feelings on perceptions/judgments about biotechnology. This exploratory study investigated current perceptions of genetically modified (GM) food to examine (1) the effects of context (making judgments about GM food at the same time as rating other current areas of concern), and (2) the effect of feelings of dread (integral affect) and background feelings of stress (negative incidental affect) on risk judgments about GM food. An established psychometric method (semantic differential task) used with a sample of 126 adults (recruited "topic-blind," mostly from a student population) showed that, when rated in the context of other current concerns such as human cloning and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), there was less concern about GM food than might have been anticipated. Participants were recruited "topic-blind" in order to ensure that they were unaware that the focus of the research was on GM food specifically (and thus preventing biased recruitment to the study). Relative to 19 other current concerns GM food was "not dreaded," not viewed as "unethical," was judged as "controllable," and was seen as the least "risky" of all the issues studied. GM food was viewed as a "hot topic," a new risk, and as relatively unnatural (although it was not the highest rated concern on this scale). Ratings of risks across concerns by individuals experiencing high levels of negative incidental affect (stress) did not differ significantly from those reporting low stress.     

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.     

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.     

The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars

Self‐driving vehicles will affect the future of transportation, but factors that underlie perception and acceptance of self‐driving cars are yet unclear. Research on feelings as information and the affect heuristic has suggested that feelings are an important source of information, especially in situations of complexity and uncertainty. In this study (N = 1,484), we investigated how feelings related to traditional driving affect risk perception, benefit perception, and trust related to self‐driving cars as well as people's acceptance of the technology. Due to limited experiences with and knowledge of self‐driving cars, we expected that feelings related to a similar experience, namely, driving regular cars, would influence judgments of self‐driving cars. Our results support this assumption. While positive feelings of enjoyment predicted higher benefit perception and trust, negative affect predicted higher risk and higher benefit perception of self‐driving cars. Feelings of control were inversely related to risk and benefit perception, which is in line with research on the affect heuristic. Furthermore, negative affect was an important source of information for judgments of use and acceptance. Interest in using a self‐driving car was also predicted by lower risk perception, higher benefit perception, and higher levels of trust in the technology. Although people's individual experiences with advanced vehicle technologies and knowledge were associated with perceptions and acceptance, many simply have never been exposed to the technology and know little about it. In the absence of this experience or knowledge, all that is left is the knowledge, experience, and feelings they have related to regular driving.     

The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication

A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms “risk” and “hazard.” The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four‐fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders’ perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.     

Equity in Social Risk: Some Empirical Observations

In societal risk analysis the equity of the distribution of risks is often an important consideration owing to the special nature of health risks. We empirically validate some assumptions about equity that have been discussed in the decision analytic literature. Our results show that the way fatalities are distributed throughout a society is considered along with the number of fatalities in evaluating alternative policies involving mortality risks. The concepts of ex ante equity and ex post equity are both shown to be important in judgments of fairness. We next present a decision model based on multiattribute preference theory incorporating the number of fatalities, as well as ex ante equity and ex post equity. When ex ante equity and ex post equity are positively weighted in this fair-risk model , options with more equal risk distributions are ranked higher. Next we empirically show that the distribution of benefits has an impact on judgments of fairness. The fair-risk model does not include information on the benefits distribution, so it would apply when benefits are distributed equally or when the decision maker wishes to not include benefits in the model. We briefly discuss how the notion of proportional equity can incorporate benefits into judgments of the fairness of risk distributions. We then include benefits in a more general model in which fair risk-benefit combinations are those that are exchange equitable. A key implication of this envy-free risk–benefit model is that an unequal distribution of risks may be preferred if it is accompanied by a compensatory differential in benefits consistent with peoples' preference tradeoffs between received benefits and assumed risks. Finally, we discuss how perceived deservedness may influence judgments about equity. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of research on alternative notions of equity for policy makers dealing with social risks.     

Public Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Technology1

This study attempted to verify and extend previous research on people's perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology and their judgments concerning the acceptability of technology safety regulations. The study addressed several limitations of prior work, in that: (1) it was the first “expressed-preference” study to collect data from large, representative samples of Americans; (2) the research design made “person,” rather than “technology,” the unit of statistical analysis; and (3) the study employed an expanded set of independent variables, including three qualitative benefit characteristics. The results confirmed several major conclusions of prior expressed-preference research, the most important being that members of the public tend to define “risks,”“benefits,” and “acceptability” in a complex, multidimensional manner; and that their definitions differ significantly from those used by professional risk-managers and other technical experts in quantitative assessments of risk and acceptability. The results also indicated that people's stances toward technology regulation tend to cut across traditional sociodemographic lines.     

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.     

Tolerance for Environmental Health Risks: The Influence of Knowledge, Benefits, Voluntariness, and Environmental Attitudes

This study examined factors affecting risk estimates and tolerance among persons directly exposed to environmental health risks. Data were gathered from questionnaires distributed at public hearings regarding proposed air pollution standards for an arsenic emitting copper smelter located in Tacoma, Washington. Approximately 80% of the area residents who attended the hearings completed the questionnaires, and the responses of 347 subjects were analyzed. Results indicated that informal risk estimates and risk tolerance were closely associated with judged benefits of the hazard source, acceptance or denial of vulnerability, judgments of exposure voluntariness, and environmental attitudes. Neither factual knowledge of formal risk estimates and proposed standards nor residential distance from the smelter was found to be closely related to risk tolerance or informal risk estimates. Implications of the results are discussed in relation to past and future studies of reactions to risk, and in relation to risk management policy and practice.     

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.     

Experiments in Lay Cues to the Relative Validity of Positions Taken by Disputing Groups of Scientists

Risk analysis and hazard management can prompt varied intra‐scientific disputes, some which have or will become public, and thus potentially available for lay judgments of the relative validity of the positions taken. As attentive laypeople may include elites as well as the general public, understanding whether and how cues to credibility of disputing groups of scientists might shape those lay judgments can be important. Relevant literatures from philosophy, social studies of science, risk analysis, and elsewhere have identified potential cues, but not tested their absolute or relative effects. Two experiments with U.S. online panel members tested multiple cues (e.g., credentials, experience, majority opinions, research quality) across topics varying in familiarity subject to actual intra‐science disputes (dark matter, marijuana, sea‐level rise). If cues supported a position, laypeople were more likely to choose it as relatively more valid, with information quality, majority “vote,” experience, and degree source as the strongest, and interest, demographic, and values similarity as the weakest, cues. These results were similar in overall rankings to those from implicit rankings of cue reliability ratings from an earlier U.S. online survey. Proposed moderators were generally nonsignificant, but topic familiarity and subjective topic knowledge tended to reduce cue effects. Further research to confirm and extend these findings can inform both theory about citizen engagement with scientific and risk disputes, and practice in communication about science and risk.     

Correlates of Hazard Education Programs for Youth

Virtually no research has examined the hypothesized benefits of hazard education programs for youth in helping to increase community resilience. This exploratory study examined the role of these programs in helping to increase child and family resilience to a range of future hazards. Various aspects of hazards programs were examined in relation to a wide range of child- and parent-reported hazard adjustments in a sample of 560 schoolchildren. Additional factors assessed included childrens' risk perceptions, knowledge of response-related protective activities, and hazard-related emotional factors. Overall, the results supported the role of hazards education programs in increasing hazard adjustments in the home. The findings also supported various aspects of education program involvement as being related to more realistic risk perceptions, increased knowledge, and increased interaction with caregivers. Analyses identified the following features of these programs as being particularly important: provision of specific knowledge (e.g., an emergency management perspective); multiple program involvement over time; and, importantly, promotion of increased interaction between children and parents. Overall, findings supported the idea that hazards education programs for youth provide one gateway through which communities can increase their resilience to the effects of a major hazardous event. Findings also provided an initial foundation for further research in this emerging area.     

Perception and Acceptance of Technological and Environmental Risks: Why Are Poor Countries Less Concerned?

The research has been aimed at answering two questions: (1) What factors impact perception and acceptance of technological and environmental hazards? (2) Why are rich societies involved more in protecting their environment and health than poor societies? Data has been collected from representative samples of two countries—Poland and Sweden. The results indicate that (1) contrary to earlier findings, the inverse relations between perceived benefits and dangers of hazards has not been observed, (2) acceptance of a risk has been mostly influenced by perceived benefits, (3) rejection of a risk has been mostly influenced by its perceived harmful consequences. Concerning the second question, it has been found that: (1) perceived hazard's danger and benefit is not the only factor that impacts its acceptance, and (2) a broader economic context can impact acceptance (tolerance) of hazards. It has been found that being aware of high dangers and not very high benefits of hazardous activities, Poles still have accepted them. Thus, Poles seem to follow an old proverb: “When one does not have what one likes, one has to like what one has.”     

The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?

Good policy making should be based on available scientific knowledge. Sometimes this knowledge is well established through research, but often scientists must simply express their judgment, and this is particularly so in risk scenarios that are characterized by high levels of uncertainty. Usually in such cases, the opinions of several experts will be sought in order to pool knowledge and reduce error, raising the question of whether individual expert judgments should be given different weights. We argue—against the commonly advocated “classical method”—that no significant benefits are likely to accrue from unequal weighting in mathematical aggregation. Our argument hinges on the difficulty of constructing reliable and valid measures of substantive expertise upon which to base weights. Practical problems associated with attempts to evaluate experts are also addressed. While our discussion focuses on one specific weighting scheme that is currently gaining in popularity for expert knowledge elicitation, our general thesis applies to externally imposed unequal weighting schemes more generally.     

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.     

THE ROLE OF AFFECTIVE EXPERIENCE IN WORK MOTIVATION

Based on psychological and neurobiological theories of core affective experience, we identify a set of direct and indirect paths through which affective feelings at work affect three dimensions of behavioral outcomes: direction, intensity, and persistence. First, affective experience may influence these behavioral outcomes indirectly by affecting goal level and goal commitment, as well as three key judgment components of work motivation: expectancy judgments, utility judgments, and progress judgments. Second, affective experience may also affect these behavioral outcomes directly. We discuss implications of our model.     

Lay Understanding of Synergistic Risk: The Case of Radon and Cigarette Smoking

The combination of radon and smoking produces a synergistic risk of lung cancer. Lay understanding of this risk was examined from the perspectives of mental models theory, the psychometric approach to risk perception, and optimistic bias. As assessed by interview, participants ( N = 50) had more extensive mental models for the risks of smoking than for the risks of radon or the combination of radon and smoking; 32% knew little or nothing about radon. Despite reading an informational brochure, their risk-perception ratings of the three hazards showed no perception of the synergy between smoking and radon risk, although the combined hazard was rated as less familiar but more controllable than the average of the single hazards ( p < .01). No evidence of optimistic bias for the health consequences of radon, or the combination of radon and smoking was observed. Participants appeared to be combining the single-hazard risks subadditively to arrive at their combined-hazard risk perceptions. Further research on the integration of perceived risks would be beneficial for designing optimal communications about synergistic risk.     

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.