Riskperception modeller och principer
Download
1 / 53

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 135 Views
  • Uploaded on

Riskperception – modeller och principer. The Swedish Risk Academy Annual Meeting May 14, 2013 Lennart Sjöberg Center for Risk Research Stockholm School of Economics Sweden. Outline. Why study risk perception? Experimental work Factors in risk perception

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - gyda


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Riskperception modeller och principer

Riskperception – modeller och principer

The Swedish Risk Academy

Annual Meeting

May 14, 2013

Lennart Sjöberg

Center for Risk Research

Stockholm School of Economics

Sweden


Outline
Outline

  • Why study risk perception?

  • Experimental work

  • Factors in risk perception

  • Specifics of risk perception: example of chemicals

  • Trust and antagonism

  • Risk targets

  • Demand for risk mitigation

  • Affect (attitude) and emotions

  • Experts and the public

  • Conclusions


As you will see,

my research questions the “received view”

from well-known work on risk perception,

critical comments are invited


Why research on risk perception
Why research on risk perception?

  • Risk is a very common issue in policy deliberations

  • This is true both for decision makers, experts and the public

  • Several risk related issues have created great economic and political turbulence

  • There is therefore a need to know more about how people perceive and react to risks


Risk perception rp and risk communication rc
Risk perception (RP) and risk communication (RC)

  • Beliefs (”perceptions”) constitute the basis: What RC should be about

  • Beliefs are both the motives for RC and targets of RC

  • The sucess of RC is therefore dependent on the validity of RP models applied


Some experimental work
Some experimental work

  • Does exposure to well crafted “risk movies” lead to availability of the risks depicted, and hence to increased perceived risks

    • To our surprise no such effect could be found!

  • A similar theme was studied in a quasi-experiment in 5 countries where we followed media reports on nuclear risks 10 years after the Chernobyl accident. Intense media attention should have increased availability and hence perceived risk.

    • To our surprise no such effect could be found!


Interpretation
Interpretation

  • What looks like availability effects is really effects of new information, cp. the news about “mad cow disease” in the spring of 1996. This was NEW information and it had great RP effects.

  • Just bringing up an old and well known risk does not make it see more threatening.


Data sources (examples) from our work on risk perception surveys at the Center for Risk Research in Stockholm

  • Several projects on attitudes and perceived risks with regard to nuclear power and nuclear waste – both EU and Swedish data

  • EU project on chemicals in consumer products

  • Perceived risk of food, genetically modified food, alcohol and smoking

  • Political and social risks of EU membership

  • Perceived risks of terrorism

  • Selected results from surveys will be presented, but first some experimental work on availability…


Surveys factors in risk perception
Surveys: Factors in risk perception surveys at the Center for Risk Research in Stockholm

  • ‘Interfering with nature’ is an important factor and so are moral aspects

  • Reactions to new technology are not driven by ‘novelty’ per se but by other factors, such as perceived benefit, or whether the technology brings about unique advantages and is hard to replace

  • Social trust is important, but epistemic trust, trust in Science, is even more so

  • Attitude or ”affect” plays an important role

  • Risk sensitivity is an aspect of individual differences which is quite important – some people rate risks as large, others rate them as small

  • Attitude to precautionary policy is another important factor

  • Various hazards, some new (such as terrorism), require their own specific factors


Typically social trust (in experts or organisations) has only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

But at the aggregate level it is easier to see a relationship.

See graph based on surveys of chemical risks, next slide


Factors beyond social trust
Factors beyond social trust only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

  • Trust in science, as distinct from social trust, has a stronger effect – epistemic trust

  • Level of education is also important

  • Another important factor is perceived antagonism


Effect of social trust is mediated by epistemic trust model of nuclear waste risk

Risk only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

sensitivity

0.28

-0.23

-0.22

R2=0.41

R2=0.37

R2=0.56

0.35

-0.51

0.38

Social

Epistemic

Perceived

trust

trust

risk

-0.19

-0.50

0.12

Antagonism

GFI=0.95, AGFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.030

Effect of social trust is mediated byepistemic trust (model of nuclear waste risk)


Conclusion about trust
Conclusion about trust only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

  • Epistemic trust is more important than social trust

  • The effect of social trust is mediated by epistemic trust

  • In other words: trust in people and institutions is important to the extent that it promotes belief in the substance of their message


Risk target whose risk more specifically
Risk target: Whose ‘risk’ – more specifically? only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

  • Personal and general risk differ both as to level and rank order

    • General risk is important for lifestyle (smoking etc.,)

    • Personal for environmental risks, and technology hazards

  • Research shows that such risk ratings with a non-specified target are close to general risk

  • But, general risk is not the most relevant in policy contexts


Personal and general risk alcohol
Personal and general risk, alcohol only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less


Personal and general risk smoking
Personal and general risk, smoking only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less


Different dynamics of personal and general risk
Different dynamics of personal and general risk only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

  • General risk is related to policy for hazards perceived to be under one’s personal control

  • Personal risk is related to policy for hazards not under one’s personal control

  • Examples: alcohol and nuclear power


How important is ”risk”? only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less


Focus on risk traditional approach
Focus on risk only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less– traditional approach

  • People are asked to rate the ‘risk’

  • It is assumed that perceived risk, as defined in this way, is the factor driving risk-related behaviour – such as demand for risk reduction

  • But the assumption is usually implicit


Risk mitigation the problem
Risk mitigation – the problem only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

  • What drives demand for risk reduction?

  • Is perceived risk the important factor?

  • If not, what factor is most important ?


Example
Example only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

  • Consider the risk for a Swedish citizen, age 30–45, to

    1. get a severe cold during the next 12 months

    2. become infected with the HIV virus during the same time period

  • Which risk is the largest?

  • From which risk is it more important to be protected?


Risk perception studies show that
Risk perception studies show that only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

  • Risk and probability are closely related

  • Severity and demand for risk reduction are closely related

  • Risk and demand for risk reduction are only moderately related (“probability neglect”)


Implications
Implications only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

  • In risk communication it should be clear that the public wants to hear about severity of consequences, not so much about probabilities:

    • Probability is hard to understand

    • Precise estimates of very small probabilities must rely on many assumptions and are seldom very credible

  • In risk perception research, it is necessary to broaden the scope – just studying ‘risk’ is not sufficient


Individual differences in risk perception only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less


Distribution of only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less

the number of

product types

checked as risky,

across all

respondents.



The level of risk judgments varies strongly perceived nuclear waste risk

across individuals

and is a very important explanatory factor

in risk perception models:

Risk Sensitivity


Specific risk factors perceived nuclear waste risk


Recent EU project on perceived risks of chemicals in consumer products (extensive data collected in the beginning of 2009)

  • N=26,718

  • All 27 member states of the EU participated

  • Among other things, participants were asked:

  • According to what you know, which of the following consumer products contain chemicals posing a risk to the user?

  • 13 product categories were listed


Specific reactions, not to general concept consumer products (extensive data collected in the beginning of 2009)


Comment: consumer products (extensive data collected in the beginning of 2009)

”Chemicals” is a highly variable concept.

Sometimes very risky, sometimes not.


Study of the perceived risk of terrorism
Study of the perceived risk of terrorism consumer products (extensive data collected in the beginning of 2009)


Conclusion
Conclusion consumer products (extensive data collected in the beginning of 2009)

  • Traditional explanatory factors (dread and new risk), as well as background factors, only explained 10-15 % of the variance of perceived risk

  • Twice that level was reached by adding specific factors


Emotions and affect
Emotions and affect consumer products (extensive data collected in the beginning of 2009)

  • “Affect” is a word with several distinct meanings: emotions or values (attitudes)

  • It is necessary to clarify which one is investigated – they are psychologically quite different

  • Both are related to risk perception


Attitude (affect), trust, risk sensitivity consumer products (extensive data collected in the beginning of 2009)

and attitude towards nuclear power (1991 study)


Emotions study of emotional reactions to a nuclear waste repository
Emotions – study of emotional reactions to a nuclear waste repository

  • Two candidate municipalities, one control and a national sample

  • About 800 respondents from two communities where site studies are now carried out

  • Several emotions were rated, not only one

  • Negative and positive emotions were rated


Model of the attitude to a nuclear waste repository

Attitude to nuclear power repository

Social

trust

0.06

0.13

Positive emotions

0.26

Attitude to the repository

- 0.21

Negative emotions

0.18

- 0.16

Epistemic trust

Risk to the municipality

Model of the attitude to a nuclear waste repository

Model of attitude to the repository explaining 65% of the variance


Correlations between emotional reactions and the attitude to nuclear power

Emotion repository

Own emotional reaction to nuclear power

The anticipated emotional reaction of others to nuclear power

Anger

-0.62

-0.08

Contempt

-0.55

-0.10

Fear

-0.65

-0.06

Interest

0.28

0.17

Sadness

-0.58

-0.12

Satisfaction

0.57

0.21

Guilt

-0.25

0.03

Shame

-0.29

0.04

Worry

-0.61

-0.12

Correlations between emotional reactions and the attitude to nuclear power


Mean emotional reactions attributed to others versus own reactions

3.5 repository

3.0

2.5

Others’ emotional reaction

2.0

1.5

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

Own emotional reaction

Mean emotional reactions attributed to others versus own reactions


A methodological point
A methodological point repository

  • Instructions to rate “dread” do not specify WHOSE dread

  • This probably leads to the interpretation to rate the emotional reactions of OTHERS

  • In turn, data therefore reflect only a weak link between emotional reactions and perceived risk


Conclusions about emotions
Conclusions about emotions repository

  • Specific and current emotional reactions do seem to explain much of attitudes and policy behaviour, attitude (“affect”) somewhat less

  • Compare these strong effects with the almost zero importance of anticipated ‘dread’ of others

  • Both positive and negative emotions are important

  • Note that ‘worry’ contributes beyond the effect of ‘fear’

  • Anger seems to be more important than fear in policy contexts


Experts versus the public
Experts versus the public repository

  • Original work suggested, in some interpretations, that experts make ‘correct’ and ‘objective’ risk judgements used a very small group of ‘experts’ with questionable competence

  • Later work with substantive experts has shown that they have similar structure of risk perception, but lower level

  • Risk perception is related to experts’ field of responsibility – not to knowledge


Ratings of risk dimensions of nuclear waste repository

by the public, and male and female experts

Expert-public difference for both genders


No gender repository

difference

among experts


Regression coefficients in model of perceived nuclear waste risk, results from analyzing data from experts (A) and engineers (B) plotted against results from analyzing data from the public.

Very similar models for experts and the public


Personal risk risk, results from analyzing data from experts (A) and engineers (B) plotted against results from analyzing data from the public.

General risk

Explanatory variable

Public

Experts

Public

Experts

Dread

0.40

0.43

0.19

0.01

New risk

0.44

0.51

0.31

-0.06

Interfering with nature

0.47

0.53

0.47

0.08

Immoral risk

0.51

0.56

0.61

0.38

Severity of consequences

0.50

0.54

0.47

0.08

Epistemic trust

-0.24

-0.31

-0.27

-0.08

Social trust

-0.38

-0.42

-0.52

-0.30

Correlations between risk perception ratings and the psychometric factors (genetically modified food) for the public and experts

Experts’ risk ratings unrelated to “subjective factors,

But only for Dread and Novelty and for general risk


Conclusion public and experts
Conclusion risk, results from analyzing data from experts (A) and engineers (B) plotted against results from analyzing data from the public. – public and experts

  • Experts judge personal risk in a manner similar to the public

  • However, their judgements of general risk seem to be less correlated with the ‘subjective’ factors

  • Other studies have shown that personal risk is most important in policy related to technology and the environment

  • Experts judge risks to be smaller when they are within their general area of responsibility


What does our research imply for risk communication
What does our research imply for risk communication? risk, results from analyzing data from experts (A) and engineers (B) plotted against results from analyzing data from the public.

  • Emotions are important to take into account

    • but not only strong fear

  • Concern about ‘Interfering with Nature’ is a major factor

    • but not novelty of a risk

  • People’s understanding and trust in science is very important

    • social trust is somewhat less important

  • ‘Risk’ and ‘probability’ are marginal to people

    • they respond to notions about anticipated consequences and whether a technology has unique advantages

  • Experts are not that different from the public in how they react to hazards outside their field of responsibility


For more information
For more information… risk, results from analyzing data from experts (A) and engineers (B) plotted against results from analyzing data from the public.

  • See my homepage

    http://www.dynam-it.com/lennart/

  • Several papers and reports can be downloaded from that site