Does Size Matter? A Study of Risk Perceptions of Global Population Growth

The global human population now exceeds 7 billion and is projected to reach 10 billion around 2060. While population growth has been associated with certain benefits (e.g., economies of scale, technological advancements), theoretical models, probabilistic projections, and empirical evidence also indicate that this growth could increase the likelihood of many adverse events (e.g., climate change, resource shortages) and the impact of these events, as more people are exposed to the outcomes. While concerns about these issues are well‐documented in the academic literature, there is little evidence concerning the public's perceptions of the risks associated with global population growth (GPG) and how these perceptions are likely to influence related decisions. To address these issues, we conducted a U.K.‐based study that examined respondents’ risk perceptions of GPG, their willingness to embrace mitigation/precautionary behaviors, and reasons for variations in these two factors. We found that GPG is perceived as a moderate‐to‐high risk, with concerns about the increased likelihood of resource shortages, ecological damage, and violent conflict being foremost. Respondents believed that the worst effects of GPG would arrive around 2050 and would be experienced by the world's poorest people. Respondents who perceived greater levels of risk from GPG were generally those who indicated a greater willingness to embrace mitigation behaviors (e.g., reduce resource consumption) and preventative actions (e.g., support political action to limit growth). We discuss how our findings might be utilized to better manage the potential challenges associated with GPG and we suggest several directions for further research.     

The Politicization of Risk: Party Cues,Polarization, and Public Perceptions of Climate Change Risk

Previous research shows that public perceptions of climate change risk are strongly related to the individual willingness to support climate mitigation and adaptation policy. In this article, I investigate how public perceptions of climate change risk are affected by communications from political parties and the degree of polarization among them. Specifically, using survey data from Sweden, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand, I study the relationship between party source cues, perceived polarization, and public perceptions of climate change risk. The results reveal a positive relationship between party cues and perceptions of climate change risk, indicating that individuals adjust their risk perceptions to align with their party preference. Furthermore, a negative relationship between perceived polarization and individual risk perceptions is also discovered, showing that individuals tend to be less concerned with climate change the more polarization they perceive. However, the effect of perceived polarization is found to be limited to more abstract perceptions of risk, while being unrelated to perceptions of concrete risks. Even with some contextual variance, the results generally hold up well across the four countries.     

Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception

Decades of research identify risk perception as a largely intuitive and affective construct, in contrast to the more deliberative assessments of probability and consequences that form the foundation of risk assessment. However, a review of the literature reveals that many of the risk perception measures employed in survey research with human subjects are either generic in nature, not capturing any particular affective, probabilistic, or consequential dimension of risk; or focused solely on judgments of probability. The goal of this research was to assess a multidimensional measure of risk perception across multiple hazards to identify a measure that will be broadly useful for assessing perceived risk moving forward. Our results support the idea of risk perception being multidimensional, but largely a function of individual affective reactions to the hazard. We also find that our measure of risk perception holds across multiple types of hazards, ranging from those that are behavioral in nature (e.g., health and safety behaviors), to those that are technological (e.g., pollution), or natural (e.g., extreme weather). We suggest that a general, unidimensional measure of risk may accurately capture one's perception of the severity of the consequences, and the discrete emotions that are felt in response to those potential consequences. However, such a measure is not likely to capture the perceived probability of experiencing the outcomes, nor will it be as useful at understanding one's motivation to take mitigation action.     

Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources,Perceived Risks,and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power

We examined how individuals perceive nuclear energy in the context of climate change mitigation and how their perceptions are associated with trust in different risk information sources. We analyzed the interrelationships between trust, perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, perception of nuclear energy as an acceptable way to mitigate climate change, and willingness to pay (WTP) for alternatives to nuclear power. A nationwide survey (N = 967) collected in Finland was analyzed with structural equation modeling. The associations between trust and perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, and perception of nuclear power as a way to mitigate climate change varied by the type of information source. Political party support and other background variables were associated with trust in different information sources. The effect of trust in information sources on WTP was mediated by perceived risks and benefits. The results will increase our understanding of how individuals perceive nuclear energy as a way to cut CO₂ emissions and the role of trust in different information sources in shaping nuclear risk perceptions and energy choices.     

What Risks Are People Concerned About

An unusual questionnaire was used to explore what risks concern laypeople. It asked respondents to list, in their own words, as many risks of personal concern as they could. They then selected the five risks of greatest concern and answered a set of specific questions about each. A coding scheme was developed for categorizing these responses and was shown to have good reliability. The questionnaire was administered to a heterogeneous convenience sample of subjects. They reported a very broad range of risks of concern, which differed in plausible ways as a function of their gender and age. Females and student-age subjects were generally more concerned about the environment, whereas males and older subjects were more likely to mention health and safety risks. Both the extent of the risk-reduction actions that they reported and their expressed willingness to pay for future risk reductions were greater for risk that presented a direct personal threat (e.g., health risks) than for risks that posed a diffuse threat to the environment or to people in general (e.g., pollution). Respondents perceived themselves as bearing primary responsibility for managing threats to their own health, but generally saw government as bearing a heavier responsibility for managing environmental risks (especially for pollutants) and war. The questionnaire instrument and coding structure developed for this work are well-suited to a variety of future research applications. They provide a way to identify the risks that concern lay groups, as well as to track the evolution of those concerns over time.     

Growing Pains: How Risk Perception and Risk Communication Research Can Help to Manage the Challenges of Global Population Growth

In 2011, the global human population reached 7 billion and medium variant projections indicate that it will exceed 9 billion before 2045. Theoretical and empirical perspectives suggest that this growth could lead to an increase in the likelihood of adverse events (e.g., food shortages, climate change, etc.) and/or the severity of adverse events (e.g., famines, natural disasters, etc.). Several scholars have posited that the size to which the global population grows and the extent to which this growth increases the likelihood of adverse outcomes will largely be shaped by individuals’ decisions (in households, organizations, governments, etc.). In light of the strong relationship between perceived risk and decision behaviors, it is surprising that there remains a dearth of empirical research that specifically examines the perceived risks of population growth and how these perceptions might influence related decisions. In an attempt to motivate this important strand of research, this article examines the major risks that may be exacerbated by global population growth and draws upon empirical work concerning the perception and communication of risk to identify potential directions for future research. The article also considers how individuals might perceive both the risks and benefits of population growth and be helped to better understand and address the related issues. The answers to these questions could help humanity better manage the emerging consequences of its continuing success in increasing infant survival and adult longevity.     

The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication

Results of past research suggest that affect plays an important role in risk perception. Because affect may also increase the availability of risks, affect and availability are closely related concepts. Three studies tested the hypothesis that evoking negative affect (fear), either through past experience or through experimental manipulation, results in greater perceived risk. The present research focused on perception of flooding risk. Study 1 and Study 2 showed that participants who received risk information concerning a longer time period (e.g., 30 years) perceived more danger compared with participants who received risk information for one year. Study 2 showed that the interpretation of risk information was influenced by participants' own experiences with flooding. In Study 3, affect was experimentally manipulated. After looking at photographs depicting houses in a flooded region, participants perceived greater risk compared with participants in a control group. Taken together, the results of these three studies suggest that affect is important for successful risk communication. Results of the present research are in line with the affect heuristic proposed by Slovic and colleagues.     

American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?

Public risk perceptions can fundamentally compel or constrain political, economic, and social action to address particular risks. Public support or opposition to climate policies (e.g., treaties, regulations, taxes, subsidies) will be greatly influenced by public perceptions of the risks and dangers posed by global climate change. This article describes results from a national study (2003) that examined the risk perceptions and connotative meanings of global warming in the American mind and found that Americans perceived climate change as a moderate risk that will predominantly impact geographically and temporally distant people and places. This research also identified several distinct interpretive communities, including naysayers and alarmists, with widely divergent perceptions of climate change risks. Thus, "dangerous" climate change is a concept contested not only among scientists and policymakers, but among the American public as well.     

Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground-Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities

Graphs are increasingly recommended for improving decision-making and promoting risk-avoidant behaviors. Graphs that depict only the number of people affected by a risk (“foreground-only” displays) tend to increase perceived risk and risk aversion (e.g., willingness to get vaccinated), as compared to graphs that also depict the number of people at risk for harm (“foreground+background” displays). However, previous research examining these “foreground-only effects” has focused on relatively low-probability risks (<10%), limiting generalizability to communications about larger risks. In two experiments, we systematically investigated the moderating role of probability size on foreground-only effects, using a wide range of probability sizes (from 0.1% to 40%). Additionally, we examined the moderating role of the size of the risk reduction, that is, the extent to which a protective behavior reduces the risk. Across both experiments, foreground-only effects on perceived risk and risk aversion were weaker for larger probabilities. Experiment 2 also revealed that foreground-only effects were weaker for smaller risk reductions, while foreground-only displays decreased understanding of absolute risk magnitudes independently of probability size. These findings suggest that the greater effectiveness of foreground-only versus foreground+background displays for increasing perceived risk and risk aversion diminishes with larger probability sizes and smaller risk reductions. Moreover, if the goal is to promote understanding of absolute risk magnitudes, foreground+background displays should be used rather than foreground-only displays regardless of probability size. Our findings also help to refine and extend existing theoretical accounts of foreground-only effects to situations involving a wide range of probability sizes.     

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.     

Designing Graphs that Promote Both Risk Understanding and Behavior Change

Graphs show promise for improving communications about different types of risks, including health risks, financial risks, and climate risks. However, graph designs that are effective at meeting one important risk communication goal (promoting risk‐avoidant behaviors) can at the same time compromise another key goal (improving risk understanding). We developed and tested simple bar graphs aimed at accomplishing these two goals simultaneously. We manipulated two design features in graphs, namely, whether graphs depicted the number of people affected by a risk and those at risk of harm (“foreground+background”) versus only those affected (“foreground‐only”), and the presence versus absence of simple numerical labels above bars. Foreground‐only displays were associated with larger risk perceptions and risk‐avoidant behavior (i.e., willingness to take a drug for heart attack prevention) than foreground+background displays, regardless of the presence of labels. Foreground‐only graphs also hindered risk understanding when labels were not present. However, the presence of labels significantly improved understanding, eliminating the detrimental effect of foreground‐only displays. Labels also led to more positive user evaluations of the graphs, but did not affect risk‐avoidant behavior. Using process modeling we identified mediators (risk perceptions, understanding, user evaluations) that explained the effect of display type on risk‐avoidant behavior. Our findings contribute new evidence to the graph design literature: unlike what was previously feared, we demonstrate that it is possible to design foreground‐only graphs that promote intentions for behavior change without a detrimental effect on risk understanding. Implications for the design of graphical risk communications and decision support are discussed.     

Organizational Injustice as an Occupational Health Risk

Abstract

Content to conceive of inequity distress as a hypothetical construct instead of an intervening variable, a half century of research inspired by equity theory has paid little attention to measuring inequity distress. At the turn of the twenty‐first century, however, European epidemiologists, interested in determinants of ill health, found that injustice is a source of adverse emotional reactions that put people at risk for mental and physical morbidity (e.g., depression and coronary heart disease). This research is reviewed here, along with studies identifying pathways accounting for these connections. Specifically, perceived injustices lead to negative emotional reactions and to unhealthy behaviors (e.g., being sedentary, smoking, and drinking excessively), both of which trigger various negative bodily reactions (e.g., elevated serum lipids). These, in turn, subsequently put people at risk of illness. Research has found that such effects are mitigated by organizational interventions that promote perceptions of justice. Three limitations warranting consideration in future research are discussed: (a) the need to address methodological concerns (e.g., reducing common method variance, improving efforts to determine causality), (b) the need to assess the cultural generalizability of research findings, and (c) the need to supplement the existing attention to disease with a new focus on health and well‐being.     

Children's disaster knowledge,risk perceptions,and preparedness: A cross-country comparison in Nepal and Turkey

While children are one of the groups at risk in disasters, they can also take an active part in disaster management, provided that the opportunity is given. This research examined the effect of disaster experience, disaster education, country, and city socioeconomic status on children's perceived risk and preparedness with a survey of 1335 children between 11 and 14 years old, in Nepal and Turkey. The survey used questionnaires and the pictorial representation of illness and self measure (PRISM) tool. Results showed that (1) children's risk perceptions were in line with their country-specific objective risks; (2) there were differences between the countries in relation to perception of risk for all the hazards except wildfire; (3) socioeconomic status had a statistically significant effect on children's perceptions of risk and preparedness for earthquakes, wildfires, that is, children who live in wealthier places had higher perceived risk and preparedness; (4) children in both countries showed similar trends in their knowledge of the correct protective actions to take in the event of a hazard occurrence. However, there is still room to enhance children's knowledge, in terms of safety behaviors, as the children selected many incorrect protective actions. There are important implications in terms of child-centered disaster management which hopefully will make life safer and help to create more resilience to disaster in society as a whole.     

What Risks Do People Perceive in Everyday Life? A Perspective Gained from the Experience Sampling Method (ESM)

The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to collect data from 74 part-time students who described and assessed the risks involved in their current activities when interrupted at random moments by text messages. The major categories of perceived risk were short term in nature and involved "loss of time or materials" related to work and "physical damage" (e.g., from transportation). Using techniques of multilevel analysis, we demonstrate effects of gender, emotional state, and types of risk on assessments of risk. Specifically, females do not differ from males in assessing the potential severity of risks but they see these as more likely to occur. Also, participants assessed risks to be lower when in more positive self-reported emotional states. We further demonstrate the potential of ESM by showing that risk assessments associated with current actions exceed those made retrospectively. We conclude by noting advantages and disadvantages of ESM for collecting data about risk perceptions.     

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.     

Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: The Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources

Wildfire is a persistent and growing threat across much of the western United States. Understanding how people living in fire‐prone areas perceive this threat is essential to the design of effective risk management policies. Drawing on the social amplification of risk framework, we develop a conceptual model of wildfire risk perceptions that incorporates the social processes that likely shape how individuals in fire‐prone areas come to understand this risk, highlighting the role of information sources and social interactions. We classify information sources as expert or nonexpert, and group social interactions according to two dimensions: formal versus informal, and generic versus fire‐specific. Using survey data from two Colorado counties, we empirically examine how information sources and social interactions relate to the perceived probability and perceived consequences of a wildfire. Our results suggest that social amplification processes play a role in shaping how individuals in this area perceive wildfire risk. A key finding is that both “vertical” (i.e., expert information sources and formal social interactions) and “horizontal” (i.e., nonexpert information and informal interactions) interactions are associated with perceived risk of experiencing a wildfire. We also find evidence of perceived “risk interdependency”—that is, homeowners’ perceptions of risk are higher when vegetation on neighboring properties is perceived to be dense. Incorporating social amplification processes into community‐based wildfire education programs and evaluating these programs’ effectiveness constitutes an area for future inquiry.     

Expecting the Unexpected: Predicting Physiological and Psychological Wildfire Preparedness from Perceived Risk,Responsibility, and Obstacles

People who live in wildfire‐prone communities tend to form their own hazard‐related expectations, which may influence their willingness to prepare for a fire. Past research has already identified two important expectancy‐based factors associated with people's intentions to prepare for a natural hazard: Perceived risk (i.e., perceived threat likelihood and severity) and perceived protection responsibility. We expanded this research by differentiating the influence of these factors on different types of wildfire preparedness (e.g., preparations for evacuation vs. for defending the house) and measured actual rather than intended preparedness. In addition, we tested the relation between preparedness and two additional threat‐related expectations: the expectation that one can rely on an official warning and the expectation of encountering obstacles (e.g., the loss of utilities) during a fire. A survey completed by 1,003 residents of wildfire‐prone areas in Perth, Australia, revealed that perceived risk (especially risk severity) and perceived protection responsibility were both positively associated with all types of preparedness, but the latter did not significantly predict preparedness after controlling for other predictors and demographics. Also, the two new expectancy‐based factors were significantly associated with all types of preparedness, and remained significant predictors of some types of preparedness after controlling for other predictors and demographics: the expectation of being able to rely on an official fire warning and expecting to lose electricity both still predicted less preparedness around house resilience, and expecting to lose water still predicted increased planning preparedness. We discuss public policy implications that follow from this research.     

High Risk or Low: How Location on a "Risk Ladder" Affects Perceived Risk

Efforts to explain risk magnitude often rely on a "risk ladder" in which exposure levels and associated risk estimates are arrayed with low levels at the bottom and high ones at the top. Two experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that perceived threat and intended mitigation vary with the location of the subject's assigned level on the risk ladder. Subjects were New Jersey homeowners, asked to assume a particular level of radon or asbestos contamination in their homes, to read a brochure explaining the risk, and then to complete a questionnaire. Both studies found that the difference between an assigned level one-quarter of the way up the ladder and the same level three-quarters of the way up the ladder significantly affected threat perception; the effect on mitigation intentions was significant in only one of the studies. Variations in assigned risk also affected threat perception and mitigation intentions. Variations in test magnitude (e.g., 15 fibers per liter vs. 450 fibers per cubic foot, roughly equivalent risks) had no effect, nor did the distinction between radon and asbestos affect the dependent variables. These findings suggest that communicators can design risk ladders to emphasize particular risk characteristics.     

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

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