Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perceptions of Disasters

Public risk perceptions of mass disasters carry considerable influences, both psychologically and economically, despite their oft‐times imprecise nature. Prior research has identified the presence of an optimistic bias that affects risk perception, but there is a dearth of literature examining how these perceptions differ among cultures—particularly with regard to mass disasters. The present study explores differences among Japanese, Argentinean, and North American mental health workers in their rates of the optimistic bias in risk perceptions as contrasted between natural disasters and terrorist events. The results indicate a significant difference among cultures in levels of perceived risk that do not correspond to actual exposure rates. Japanese groups had the highest risk perceptions for both types of hazards and North Americans and Argentineans had the lowest risk perceptions for terrorism. Additionally, participants across all cultures rated risk to self as lower than risk to others (optimistic bias) across all disaster types. These findings suggest that cultural factors may have a greater influence on risk perception than social exposure, and that the belief that one is more immune to disasters compared to others may be a cross‐cultural phenomenon.     

An Assessment of Change in Risk Perception and Optimistic Bias for Hurricanes Among Gulf Coast Residents

This study focuses on levels of concern for hurricanes among individuals living along the Gulf Coast during the quiescent two‐year period following the exceptionally destructive 2005 hurricane season. A small study of risk perception and optimistic bias was conducted immediately following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Two years later, a follow‐up was done in which respondents were recontacted. This provided an opportunity to examine changes, and potential causal ordering, in risk perception and optimistic bias. The analysis uses 201 panel respondents who were matched across the two mail surveys. Measures included hurricane risk perception, optimistic bias for hurricane evacuation, past hurricane experience, and a small set of demographic variables (age, sex, income, and education). Paired t‐tests were used to compare scores across time. Hurricane risk perception declined and optimistic bias increased. Cross‐lagged correlations were used to test the potential causal ordering between risk perception and optimistic bias, with a weak effect suggesting the former affects the latter. Additional cross‐lagged analysis using structural equation modeling was used to look more closely at the components of optimistic bias (risk to self vs. risk to others). A significant and stronger potentially causal effect from risk perception to optimistic bias was found. Analysis of the experience and demographic variables’ effects on risk perception and optimistic bias, and their change, provided mixed results. The lessening of risk perception and increase in optimistic bias over the period of quiescence suggest that risk communicators and emergency managers should direct attention toward reversing these trends to increase disaster preparedness.     

Measuring Perceptions of Synergistic Circulatory Disease Risk Due to Smoking and the Oral Contraceptive Pill

There is evidence that the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) and smoking contribute independently to risk of circulatory disease. There is mixed evidence that the combined risk may be greater than the sum of these factors operating in isolation. Little is known about how the general population views the risks from OCP use, singly and in combination with smoking. Previous attempts at assessing whether the public views risks as operating synergistically have generally found evidence for subadditive models, where the combined risk is less than the sum of factors operating in isolation. However, concerns have been expressed over the validity of the measures of risk perception used. Therefore, this study used three distinct methods of measurement to assess the extent to which 241 undergraduate students perceive the risks of smoking and the OCP separately and combined, for circulatory disease. For all three methods, respondents read each of four vignettes describing information about a woman's risk factors (with high and low levels of both OCP and smoking), and then estimated risk of circulatory disease using one of the three risk measures. The three measures produced similar ratings. Consistent with the epidemiological evidence, information about smoking had more impact on estimates of overall risk than did information about the OCP For all three measures, responses were consistent with an additive model of risk from smoking and the OCP. This convergence of results from different methods suggests that all three methods of measurement employed, which all had a large number of response options, may be valid.     

The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach

Radon and overhead powerlines are two radiation risk cases that have raised varying levels of concern among the general public and experts. Despite both involving radiation—a typically feared and unseen health hazard—individuals' perceptions of the two risk cases may invoke rather different factors. We examined individual and geographic-contextual factors influencing public perceptions of the health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines in a comparative research design, utilizing a postal questionnaire with 1,528 members of the general public (response rate 28%) and multilevel modeling techniques. This study found that beliefs about the two risk cases mainly differed according to the level of "exposure"—defined here in terms of spatial proximity. We argue that there are two alternative explanations for this pattern of findings: that risk perception itself varies directly with proximity, or that risk is more salient to concerned people in the exposed areas. We also found that while people living in high radon areas are more concerned about the risks of indoor radon gas, they find these risks more acceptable and have more trust in authorities. These results might reflect the positive effects of successive radon campaigns in high radon areas, which may have raised awareness and concern, and at the same time may have helped to increase trust by showing that the government takes the health risks of indoor radon gas seriously, suggesting that genuine risk communication initiatives may have positive impacts on trust in risk management institutions.     

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.     

The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety

Researchers in the field of risk perception have been asking why people are more worried about risk today than in years past. This article explores one possible answer to this question, associative anxiety. The affect heuristic and the mental network models suggest that anxiety triggered by information regarding a particular risk can spread to other risks of the same category. Research to date, however, has not examined how information refuting the particular risk can also be generalized across other risks. The article presents two experimental studies addressing this issue. Study 1 showed that when participants were presented with information based on a real train collision, they experienced increased anxiety not only about train collisions but also about public transportation in general. In contrast, those who were informed about the train collision case as well as the preventative measures implemented after the accident experienced decreased anxiety about train collisions but not about public transportation more generally. Study 2 measured the changes in participant anxiety about a genetically modified organism (GMO) and compared the influence of information about either the existence or nonexistence of its risk. Similar to Study 1, associative anxiety rippled through the risk category. The results also suggest that the follow‐up information refuting the GMO risk reduced the anxiety toward the hazard drastically, but did not fully alleviate the anxiety toward other hazards in the category. The implications and the limitations of these studies are also discussed.     

How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks

There is a considerable body of knowledge about the way people perceive risks using heuristics and qualitative characteristics, and about how risk information should be communicated to the public. However, little is known about the way people use the perception of known risks (associated risks) to judge an unknown risk. In a first, qualitative study, six different risks were discussed in in-depth interviews and focus group interviews. The interviews showed that risk associations played a prominent role in forming risk perceptions. Associated risks were often mentioned spontaneously. Second, a survey study was conducted to confirm the importance of risk associations quantitatively. This study investigated whether people related unknown risks to known risks. This was indeed confirmed. Furthermore, some insight was gained into how and why people form risk associations. Results showed that the semantic category of the unknown risks was more important in forming associations than the perceived level of risk or specific risk characteristics. These findings were in line with the semantic network theory. Based on these two studies, we recommend using the mental models approach in developing new risk communications.     

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.     

Differences in Perception of Risk Between People Who Have and Have Not Experienced Salmonella Food Poisoning

It is believed that food hygiene precautions in domestic kitchens are an important strategy in efforts to reduce the incidence of sporadic food poisoning, but recent research has shown that people who have suffered food poisoning handle the same types of foods and adopt similar food hygiene precautions in their kitchens to the rest of the population. This suggests the need to examine other factors. A case-control study of sporadic Salmonella food poisoning was conducted to investigate several domestic kitchen risk factors. Measures of perception of risk, knowledge, and control associated with food poisoning in case and control respondents are reported here. It was found that perceived personal risk from food poisoning in the home was less than perceived risk to other people. In contrast, ratings of personal knowledge about food poisoning and personal control over food poisoning in the home were seen to be greater than other people's knowledge and control. There were no differences between the cases and the controls in their ratings of knowledge about food poisoning or their control over food poisoning. However, cases perceived their personal risk from food poisoning to be higher than controls. Both case and control samples exhibited optimistic bias but this was reduced in the case sample, suggesting that experience with food poisoning may reduce optimistic bias.     

Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes

Risk perception researchers have observed a "negativity bias" for hazard-related information. Messages indicating the presence of risk seem to be trusted more than messages indicating the absence of risk, and risk perceptions seem more affected by negative than positive information. Two experiments were conducted to examine alternative explanations of this finding within the area of food additives. Study 1 (N = 235) extended earlier work by (a) unconfounding message valence (positive or negative) from message extremity (definite or null finding) and (b) exploring the role of prior attitudes. Results suggested that negative/risky messages were indeed trusted more even when extremity was taken into account. However, prior attitudes significantly moderated the effect of message valence on trust. Positive messages were distrusted only by those with negative prior attitudes. Study 2 (N = 252), further explored the role of prior attitudes and extended the work by examining reactions to risky messages about a positively viewed additive--a vitamin. The results again found a moderating effect of prior attitudes on message valence. Participants had greater confidence in messages that were more congruent with their prior attitudes, irrespective of valence. Furthermore, positive messages had a greater impact on risk perception than negative messages. These findings suggest that greater trust in negative messages about hazards may be a product of a "confirmatory" rather than a "negativity" bias.     

The Effect of Proximity to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Subsequent Hurricane Outlook and Optimistic Bias

This study evaluated how individuals living on the Gulf Coast perceived hurricane risk after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It was hypothesized that hurricane outlook and optimistic bias for hurricane risk would be associated positively with distance from the Katrina‐Rita landfall (more optimism at greater distance), controlling for historically based hurricane risk and county population density, demographics, individual hurricane experience, and dispositional optimism. Data were collected in January 2006 through a mail survey sent to 1,375 households in 41 counties on the coast (n = 824, 60% response). The analysis used hierarchal regression to test hypotheses. Hurricane history and population density had no effect on outlook; individuals who were male, older, and with higher household incomes were associated with lower risk perception; individual hurricane experience and personal impacts from Katrina and Rita predicted greater risk perception; greater dispositional optimism predicted more optimistic outlook; distance had a small effect but predicted less optimistic outlook at greater distance (model R²= 0.21). The model for optimistic bias had fewer effects: age and community tenure were significant; dispositional optimism had a positive effect on optimistic bias; distance variables were not significant (model R²= 0.05). The study shows that an existing measure of hurricane outlook has utility, hurricane outlook appears to be a unique concept from hurricane optimistic bias, and proximity has at most small effects. Future extension of this research will include improved conceptualization and measurement of hurricane risk perception and will bring to focus several concepts involving risk communication.     

Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts

Accumulating evidence shows that certain hazard combinations interact to present synergistic risks. However, little is known about the most effective ways of helping individuals to understand this complex risk concept. More specifically, there is an absence of empirical research that has assessed the relative efficacy of messages that explain either the causal mechanism and/or the probabilistic components of synergistic risks. In an experiment designed to address this issue, we presented participants with messages concerning the synergistic risk of developing esophageal cancer for individuals who consume both tobacco and alcohol. Relative to a control group, we compared the extent to which messages featuring content detailing the underlying biological mechanism, the probabilistic risk, or both improved understanding of the synergistic risk. Our results showed that messages containing details of both the mechanism and probabilistic information were most effective at enabling individuals to understand that the alcohol‐tobacco combination presents a synergistic risk. In addition, large improvements in the accuracy of cancer frequency estimates were observed amongst individuals who received probabilistic information, and the highest relative increase in professed willingness to adopt precautionary behaviors was observed amongst individuals who received the mechanism information only. Importantly, these findings could be utilized in the development of a general model for the communication of synergistic risks. Furthermore, in contrast to previous findings, our study demonstrates that risk messages can be both effective and efficient in helping individuals to acquire a greater understanding of synergistic risks. Acquiring such knowledge could lead to significant improvements in risk‐related decisions concerning combined hazards.     

Hot Potato: Expert-Consumer Differences in the Perception of a Second-Generation Novel Food

Novel foods have been the object of intense public debate in recent years. Despite widespread efforts to communicate the outcomes of risk assessments to consumers, public confidence in risk management has been low. Social scientists have identified various reasons for this, including a disagreement between technical experts and consumers over the nature of the hazards on which risk assessments should focus. The aim of this study was to identify and compare the ways in which experts and consumers understand the benefits and risks associated with a genetically modified example crop. Two qualitative studies were conducted. In Study 1, mental models were elicited from 24 experts by means of a three-wave Delphi procedure. In Study 2, mental models were elicited from 25 consumers by means of in-depth interviews. As expected, the expert mental models were focused on the types of hazards that can realistically be addressed under current regulatory frameworks, whereas the consumers were often more concerned about issues outside the scope of current legislation. Moreover, the experts tended to define risk and benefit in terms of detailed chains of cause-effect relationships between variables for which clear definitions and measurement rules exist. The concepts the consumers used when reasoning about biological processes were very abstract, suggesting that the participants had, at most, a holistic understanding. In line with this, issues of uncertainty played a prominent role for the consumers.     

Risk Perception in the U.K. Oil and Gas Production Industry: Are Expert Loss‐Prevention Managers' Perceptions Different From Those of Members of the Public?

This article investigates potential differences in risk perception between experts (loss-prevention managers in the U.K. oil and gas production industry) and nonexperts (managers and students). Extant research on expert versus nonexpert perceptions of risk is reviewed, followed by the present study concerning risk perceptions of seven pen-picture scenarios involving the occurrence of hazardous events in the U.K. oil and gas production industry. In contrast to many of the earlier studies of expert versus nonexpert perceptions of risk, the present analysis concludes that experts did not judge the overall riskiness of the portrayed hazardous events as less risky than the nonexperts. Nevertheless, the experts believe more strongly than our nonexperts that the risks portrayed in the scenarios pose little threat to future generations, are more precisely known, and are relatively controllable. Use of multiple regression analysis to help uncover the basis of overall riskiness assessments for expert and lay respondents was inconclusive, however. Finally, little evidence was found that nonexperts were any more heterogeneous in their risk perceptions than experts. It may be that the nature of the risks assessed in the present study may account for the general lack of clear expert versus nonexpert differences in overall perceptions of the riskiness of hazardous events in the North Sea. Earlier findings of strong expert versus nonexpert differences in risk perception assessed hazards of major public concern. It is inferred that using such extreme hazards may have resulted in an exaggerated view of differences in expert versus public (nonexpert) perception of risk.     

Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis1

So, we can argue that the lay public are not fools in their attitudes about risk. That nonexperts should show more concern over hazardous waste facilities in their neighborhoods than radon levels in their homes is not a sign of irrationality (because aggregate and individual risks are greater from the radon), but simply a sign that nonexperts are working from a different set of criteria. These criteria are incorporated in what I call the democratic model. The democratic model evaluates risk based on its social and political consequences, such as possible disruption in the social fabric or a loss of communality. Lay criteria for assessing the impact of risk decisions are not explicit, like the those of the risk analyst, but are embedded in cultural values. Similarly, lay evaluations of risk incorporate substantive and procedural democratic values, such as the acceptability of processes for making decisions, the ethics of the distribution of risk, and the capacity to control a source of risk in the community's interests. Finally, the democratic model relates judgments about risks to the competence (Can we trust them?) and the legitimacy (Should we trust them?) of the social institutions that impose and control those risks. The public's judgments about risk are not inferior, but different, and arguably richer than those of the experts.     

Environmental Hazards in the Chinese Public's Eyes

The People's Republic of China suffers each year from various environmental hazards. Although risk perception study has a 40-year history in Europe and North America, little is known about risk perception in China. Previous studies of risk perception have primarily focused on unnatural hazards, but China has experinced many natural environmental hazards. Therefore, the Chinese public's perceptions of environmental hazard risks must be considered in order to support the IDNDR program. The Chinese public's perceptions of environmental hazards are similar to those of Europeans and North Americans, but different characteristics are observed.     

Environmental Hazards in the Chinese Public's Eyes

The People's Republic of China suffers each year from various environmental hazards. Although risk perception study has a 40-year history in Europe and North America, little is known about risk perception in China. Previous studies of risk perception have primarily focused on unnatural hazards, but China has experinced many natural environmental hazards. Therefore, the Chinese public's perceptions of environmental hazard risks must be considered in order to support the IDNDR program. The Chinese public's perceptions of environmental hazards are similar to those of Europeans and North Americans, but different characteristics are observed.     

Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II

We propose a decision-analytic framework, called the mental models approach , for evaluating the impact of risk communications. It employs multiple evaluation methods, including think-aloud protocol analysis, problem solving, and a true-false test that allows respondents to express uncertainty about their answers. The approach is illustrated in empirical comparisons of three brochures about indoor radon.     

How Believing in Ourselves Increases Risk Taking: Perceived Self-Efficacy and Opportunity Recognition

What effect does positive and negative feedback about past risk taking have on the future risk taking of decision makers? The results of an experimental study show that subjects who are led to believe they are very competent at decision making see more opportunities in a risky choice and take more risks. Those who are led to believe they are not very competent see more threats and take fewer risks. The feelings of self-competence and self-confidence on one task did not generalize to a similar task. Perception of opportunities was unexpectedly not related to the perception of threats. As executives bring their personal perceptual biases to firm decision making, our results identify a serious built-in bias in SWOT analysis (the analysis of firms' strengths and weaknesses as related to potential opportunities and threats). Executives who believe that they and their firm are very competent will take more risks and vice versa. Our results also provide evidence that the perceived likelihood of an event depends on whether the event is a loss or a gain. Human decision making is subject to the general bias that outcome expectations are not independent of outcome valuations.     

Hazard Perception, Risk Perception, and the Need for Decontamination by Residents Exposed to Soil Pollution: The Role of Sustainability and the Limits of Expert Knowledge

This case study examines the hazard and risk perception and the need for decontamination according to people exposed to soil pollution. Using an ecological-symbolic approach (ESA), a multidisciplinary model is developed that draws upon psychological and sociological perspectives on risk perception and includes ecological variables by using data from experts' risk assessments. The results show that hazard perception is best predicted by objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, estimated knowledge of experts, and the assessed risks. However, experts' risk assessments induce an increase in hazard perception only when residents know the urgency of decontamination. Risk perception is best predicted by trust in the risk management. Additionally, need for decontamination relates to hazard perception, risk perception, estimated knowledge of experts, and thoughts about sustainability. In contrast to the knowledge deficit model, objective and subjective knowledge did not significantly relate to risk perception and need for decontamination. The results suggest that residents can make a distinction between hazards in terms of the seriousness of contamination on the one hand, and human health risks on the other hand. Moreover, next to the importance of social determinants of environmental risk perception, this study shows that the output of experts' risk assessments—or the objective risks—can create a hazard awareness rather than an alarming risk consciousness, despite residents' distrust of scientific knowledge.