Why Study Risk Perception?

Studies of risk perception examine the opinions people express when they are asked, in various ways, to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies. This research aims to aid risk analysis and societal decision making by (i) improving methods for eliciting opinions about risk, (ii) providing a basis for understanding and anticipating public responses to hazards, and (iii) improving the communication of risk information among laypeople, technical experts, and policy makers.     

Construal Processes in Preference Assessment

Interpreting people's preferences requires understanding how they have construed their tasks, interpreting the proposed alternatives in the context where the evaluation is being made. With stylized experimental or survey choices, researchers' challenge is typically identifying the features that people add in order to make their task real enough to answer (i.e., how they read between the lines). With rich “real world” choices, researchers' challenge is typically identifying the features that people neglect, as they reduce their task to manageable complexity (i.e., which lines they choose to read). In either case, if people misunderstand or mistrust the stated transaction, they may evaluate a different offer than the one that was proposed. Such misconstruals are a nuisance for investigators, insofar as dealing with them delays the measurements that motivated the research. However, they can also provide an opportunity, by focusing attention on how people give meaning to choice situations. This article describes procedures for studying construal processes, strategies for getting people to answer the questions that interest researchers, and options for interpreting responses when people construe questions differently than was intended.     

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Risk-Reduction Strategies for Consumer Chemical Products

Communication about risks offers a voluntary approach to reducing exposure to pollutants. Its adequacy depends on its impact on behavior. Estimating those impacts first requires characterizing current activities and their associated risk levels, and then predicting the effectiveness of risk-reduction strategies. Characterizing the risks from chemical consumer products requires knowledge of both the physical and the behavioral processes that influence exposures. This article presents an integrated approach that combines consumer interviews, users' beliefs and behaviors, and quantitative exposure modeling. This model was demonstrated in the context of consumer exposure to a methylene chloride-based paint stripper, showing how it could be used to evaluate current levels of risk and predict the effectiveness of proposed voluntary risk-reduction strategies.     

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.     

The Risks of Using Nuclear Energy Sources in Space: Some Lay Activists'Perceptions

A combination of directive and nondirective techniques was used to study the mental models of 30 lay activists regarding the risks of nuclear energy sources in space. Respondents'perceptions were compared with an "expert model" of the processes generating and controlling these risks, in terms of both the substance of their beliefs and several statistical measures of their performance. These analyses revealed a complex pattern of strengths and weaknesses. Their details are used to derive recommendations for formulating messages about these risks.     

Risk Knowledge and Risk Attitudes Regarding Nuclear Energy Sources in Space

A series of four studies examined the relationship between how much people know about the risks of using nuclear energy sources in space and how they feel about the technology. We found that the more people know, the more favorable they are—except for two groups of people selected from organizations with strong pro-industry or pro-environment positions. These results suggest that a technology will get a more favorable hearing if it can get its message out—providing that it has a legitimate story to tell and that the situation has not become too polarized already. The limits to these conclusions are discussed.     

Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I

Many risk communications are intended to help the lay public make complex decisions about risk. To guide risk communicators with this objective, a mental models approach to the design and characterization of risk communications is proposed. Building on text comprehension and mental models research, this approach offers an integrated set of methods to help the risk communication designer choose and analyze risk communication content, structure, and organization. An applied example shows that two radon brochures designed with this approach present roughly the same expert facts as a radon brochure widely distributed by the U.S. EPA but meet higher standards on other content, structure, and organization criteria.     

What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?

The risks of unfamiliar technologies are often evaluated by comparing them with the risks of more familiar ones. Such risk comparisons have been criticized for neglecting critical dimensions of risky decisions. In a guide written for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Covello et al. (¹) have summarized these critiques and developed a taxonomy that characterizes possible risk comparisons in terms of their acceptability (or objectionableness). We asked four diverse groups of subjects to judge the acceptability of 14 statements produced by Covello et al. as examples of their categories. We found no correlation between the judgments of acceptability produced by our subjects and those predicted by Covello et al. .