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.     

Efficacy,Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks

A growing body of research demonstrates that believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self‐efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts. Despite this potentially critical role of efficacy beliefs, measures and their use vary wildly in climate change risk perception and communication research, making it hard to compare and learn from efficacy studies. To address this problem and advance our understanding of efficacy beliefs, this article makes three contributions. First, we present a theoretically motivated approach to measuring climate change mitigation efficacy, in light of diverse proposed, perceived, and previously researched strategies. Second, we test this in two national survey samples (Amazon's Mechanical Turk N = 405, GfK Knowledge Panel N = 1,820), demonstrating largely coherent beliefs by level of action and discrimination between types of efficacy. Four additive efficacy scales emerge: personal self‐efficacy, personal response efficacy, government and collective self‐efficacy, and government and collective response efficacy. Third, we employ the resulting efficacy scales in mediation models to test how well efficacy beliefs predict climate change policy support, controlling for specific knowledge, risk perceptions, and ideology, and allowing for mediation by concern. Concern fully mediates the relatively strong effects of perceived risk on policy support, but only partly mediates efficacy beliefs. Stronger government and collective response efficacy beliefs and personal self‐efficacy beliefs are both directly and indirectly associated with greater support for reducing the risks of climate change, even after controlling for ideology and causal beliefs about climate change.     

Confidence intervals,significance values,maximum likelihood estimates,etc. sharpened into Occam’s razors

Abstract

Confidence sets, p values, maximum likelihood estimates, and other results of non-Bayesian statistical methods may be adjusted to favor sampling distributions that are simple compared to others in the parametric family. The adjustments are derived from a prior likelihood function previously used to adjust posterior distributions.     

Myriad potential for mentoring: Understanding the process of transformational change through a gender equality intervention

This article contributes to understanding transformational change towards gender equality by examining the transformational change potential of a mentoring programme for women, a type of gender equality intervention both criticized and praised for its ability to bring about change. Drawing upon an empirical case study of a mentoring programme for women academics in a Dutch university, we explore three dimensions of transformational change: organizational members (i) discussing and reflecting upon gendered organizational norms and work practices; (ii) creating new narratives; and (iii) experimenting with new work practices. Our findings indicate five specific conditions that enable transformational change: cross‐mentoring, questioning what is taken for granted, repeating participation and individual stories, facilitating peer support networks and addressing and equipping all participants as change agents. We suggest that these conditions should be taken into account when (re)designing effective organizational gender equality interventions.     

Robust Designs in Generalized Linear Models: A Quantile Dispersion Graphs Approach

This article studies design selection for generalized linear models (GLMs) using the quantile dispersion graphs (QDGs) approach in the presence of misspecification in the link and/or linear predictor. The uncertainty in the linear predictor is represented by a unknown function and estimated using kriging. For addressing misspecified link functions, a generalized family of link functions is used. Numerical examples are shown to illustrate the proposed methodology.     

Reducing sample size needed for cox-proportional hazards model analysis using more efficient sampling method

Abstract

In general, survival data are time-to-event data, such as time to death, time to appearance of a tumor, or time to recurrence of a disease. Models for survival data have frequently been based on the proportional hazards model, proposed by Cox. The Cox model has intensive application in the field of social, medical, behavioral and public health sciences. In this paper we propose a more efficient sampling method of recruiting subjects for survival analysis. We propose using a Moving Extreme Ranked Set Sampling (MERSS) scheme with ranking based on an easy-to-evaluate baseline auxiliary variable known to be associated with survival time. This paper demonstrates that this approach provides a more powerful testing procedure as well as a more efficient estimate of hazard ratio than that based on simple random sampling (SRS). Theoretical derivation and simulation studies are provided. The Iowa 65+ Rural study data are used to illustrate the methods developed in this paper.