HomeAbout SRAMembersEventsNewsletterJournalsOpportunitiesResourcesContact

Back to 2009 Meeting Main Page

Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2009

Risk Analysis: The Evolution of a Science

Session Schedule & Abstracts

* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.

Common abbreviations

W3-B Risk Perception Sponsored by RCSG Room: Baltimore B   1:30-3:00 PM

Chair(s): Branden Johnson

W3-B.1  13:30  Knowledge and voluntary precautionary recommendations as influencing factors in risk perception of mobile communication. Cousin M-E*, Siegrist M; ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Consumer Behavior   mecousin@ethz.ch Abstract: The health risks of mobile communication radiation are a subject of controversy. Due to existing uncertainties, several countries have applied the precautionary principle for base station emissions. In this context, the question arises as to whether it would be reasonable to provide voluntary precautionary recommendations for cell phone usage, or would this provision only increase people’s health concerns in an inappropriate way. We conducted an experimental study using a sample of Swiss citizens (N=408). Three different versions of a newly developed booklet, which focused on common misconceptions in regard to mobile communication, were tested. The experimental design addressed questions of the potential effects of knowledge, voluntary precautionary recommendations and addresser on the public’s health concerns. Participants’ perceptions were measured three times: immediately before and after the reading of the booklet, and two weeks later. The results showed that the reading of the booklets increased participants’ knowledge considerably and led to different perceptional changes. Measurements showed that, in regard to cell phones, health concerns increased after the reading of the booklet and stayed at a higher level even after two weeks. The negative perception of base stations, in contrast, tended to decrease. Neither the addresser of the booklets nor the omission of precautionary recommendations had significant effects on people’s health concerns. Provision of specific precautionary recommendations enhanced reader’s willingness to adopt the recommendations in their daily cell phone handling as well as their effective behavior reported two weeks later. People with higher health concerns were particularly willing do adopt voluntary precautionary behavior.

W3-B.2  13:50  How local is risk? Exploring macro-level context and individual-level factors in risk communication across five potential sites for a biological research facility. Binder AR*, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Gunther AC; University of Wisconsin-Madison   arbinder@wisc.edu Abstract: In the past few decades, a systematic understanding of how audiences perceive risks has begun to take shape. Individual reactions, of course, can result from communication behaviors (e.g., watching news media, talking with others) as well as from cognitive mechanisms of information processing (e.g., relying on heuristics). This study builds on insights from both perspectives by comparing and contrasting the communication of risk-related information within and between a diverse set of communities. In doing so, we address discrepancies in research by focusing simultaneously on micro-level individual processes and macro-level socio-cultural characteristics. Both are theorized to play a role in the societal impacts of communication according to various social theories of risk. The data for this study come from public opinion surveys carried out in five locations under consideration for a new biological research facility in the U.S. Our regression analysis incorporates four key variables as predictors of support for the facility: attention to news media, frequency of interpersonal discussion about the facility, issue-specific knowledge, and levels of trust in decision-makers. Not surprisingly, trust is the most consistent predictor of support across all communities, while there is no evidence that knowledge about the facility is related to support. In contrast, there are no systematic patterns of communication effects. In other words, the influence of communication variables differs substantially depending on the community. In some cases, mass media play a role in determining residents’ levels of support. In others, interpersonal discussion plays a pivotal role. We therefore discuss theoretical and methodological approaches for accounting for such specific and localized communication dynamics when evaluating efforts at public engagement. We also provide recommendations for stakeholders who undertake communication campaigns aimed at engaging citizens in a local context.

W3-B.3  14:10  Gender, ethnicity, and risk perception effects of local hazards and stressed neighborhoods. Johnson BB*; New Jersey Dept of Environmental Protection   branden.johnson@dep.state.nj.us Abstract: Persistent differences across genders in risk perception responses have been observed for decades. Explanations of such differences, or of similarities in men’s and women’s risk ratings when they occur, have been offered but not yet definitively confirmed. Data from a telephone survey of residents of an ethnically diverse community allow testing of the local-hazards (i.e., women are more concerned about immediate hazards; differences disappear for more abstract or global hazards) and stressed-neighborhoods (i.e., women and men do not differ in risk views where neighborhood quality is poor) hypotheses. This paper will also examine how well these hypotheses explain interactions between gender and ethnicity (e.g., the “white male effect” in which white men report significantly lower risk ratings than other groups, or other findings that gender differences appear to occur for whites but not nonwhites).

W3-B.4  14:30  Advancing a theory of normative appraisal-based risk perception. Turner MM*, Lapinski MK, Rimal RN; University of Maryland, Michigan State University, Johns Hopkins University   mmturner@umd.edu Abstract: The purpose of this manuscript is to advance a theory of norms- and emotion-based risk perception. Borrowing from the Risk Perception Attitude Framework (RPA, Rimal & Turner, 2009), the theory of normative influences, and Appraisal Tendency Framework (Lerner & Keltner, 2000); the authors propose a model whereby norms affect people’s risk perceptions. Behaviors are guided by social norms. Norms have been conceptualized in several ways, but, Cialdini et al. (1990) make a distinction between two different types of norms: descriptive and injunctive. Kahan (2008) has also suggested that norms affect risk perceptions; unfortunately, Kahan’s work does not take into account the unique and distinct emotions that people experience. Although judgment and decision making scholars once took an entirely cognitive viewpoint, scholars now understand risk decision making to be an emotional process as well. It is now clear that the influence of emotion on decisions is robust; in fact, two negatively valenced emotions can lead to opposite risk perceptions. Appraisal theorists propose that emotions are generated due to the differences in the ways people appraise their environment (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Appraisals of attention, pleasantness, certainty, anticipated effort or obstacles, and attributions of agency can reliably discriminate 13 different emotions (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Studies have shown that emotions affect risk erceptions; and, negative emotions such as anger and fear elicit distinct and often opposite outcomes (Lerner et al., 2003). We propose that culture affect norms. Norms affect the ways that people appraise risks. Since appraisals induce emotions and emotions predict unique risk perceptions our theory advances a causal link between and among these variables. This theory will help risk communicators understand the unique predictors of risk perceptions as well as understand the link between risk perceptions and cognitive and behavioral outcomes.

[back to schedule]