risk perception 2 - theories Flashcards
4 theories/approaches to understanding risk perception
cultural theory
heuristics and biases
psychometric paradigm of risk
social amplification of risk
cultural theory to understand risk percpetion
they are socially constructed by institutions, cultural values, and ways of life - less about personal control
people are expected to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce their commitment to one or another - cultural way of life
gravitate towards perceptions of risk that advance their way of life
there are 4 cultural ways of life
4 cultural ways of lfie
fatalism
hierarchy
individualism
egalitarianism
these fall on 2 dimensions: grid and group
grid and group dimensions of cultural ways of life
strong grid = life should be organised through role differentiation based on sex, ethnicity, wealth etc.
weak grid = life should be equal and anyone can participate in any social role
strong group = life as sense of community, people depend on each other
weak group = life is competitive, people fend for themselves
way of life - fatalists
strong grid and weak group
regulated by social groups they do not belong to, indifferent about risk
way of life - heirarchy
strong grid and group
fear things that disrupt the natural order of society
way of life - individualism
weak grid and group
fear things that obstruct their individual freedom
way of life - egalitarianism
strong group, weak grid
fear things that increase inequalities amongst people
evidence for cultural theory of risk perception
cross-sectional telephone survey of 134 San Francisco Bay area residents
measured associations between 3 ways of life (Hierarchy, Individualism, Egalitarianism) and societal risk concerns
hierarchy and individualism = related to concerns about social deviance and war, but individualism more concerned about market issues
egalitarianism = related to concerns about technology, the environment and breakdown of democracy
overall = each cultural way of life is associated with different risk perceptions
limitations of cultural theory (4)
- doesn’t allow for individual rational choice
- empirical support use unreliable and non-validated measures of ‘the ways of life’
- respondents could (and do) rate high on more than one world view
- only explain a small amount of variance in individual perceptions of risk, e.g. studies typically find about 5% of variance in risk judgments are explained by cultural theory measures
heuristics and biases
heuristic = mental model on which to base judgements of risk –> shortcuts for thinking, can lead to inaccurate judgements and cognitive biases, based on experience
likely to be used with short time or when self-efficacy for studying facts is low
allows for decision making with incomplete info
affect heuristic
draws attention to way feelings about a risk object are used to arrive at conclusions about acceptable levels of risk
positive feelings towards risk object = tendency to underestimate potential harm and overestimate benefits
altering people emotions affects how they perceive a risk
evidence for affect heuristics (2)
people are willing to pay twice as much to insure a sentimental item than one that is not (even though insurance doesn’t mean you get it back)
statistics about a disease with death written as number of people out of 10,000 vs as a percentage is viewed as worse even if the percentage is better
availability heuristic
risk perceptions depend on how easily someone can see the risk as happening
or how easily one can think of an example of a risky situation happening
direct and indirect suffering explains most of the variance in risk judgements e.g. knowing someone with cancer
effect of media on availability heuristic
availability heuristic usually works, but the advent of the mass media causes problems
- rare causes of death tend to be overestimated because they hit the media
- common causes of death tend to be underestimated because they don’t
evidence support for availability heuristic - house flooding
participants asked to imagine they were planning to buy a house and then found out some info about flooding probability
result = those who previously experienced flooding rated risk higher than those with no personal experience of it
availability heuristic of direct experience
evidence support for availability heuristic - breast cancer
770 women survey around cancer screening behaviour and perceived risk of developing breast cancer
women with history of benign breast disease, with a female relative with breast cancer, or both overestimated their risk
availability heuristic based on direct or indirect experience
optimism bias
think bad things happen to other people
e.g. think the risk of spouse being affected is higher than self
defensive denial = protects from worry
downward comparison = compared to other people i am better e.g. they smoke more
egocentrism = i take precautions so i am fine
optimism bias = more likely to engage in risky beahviours
evidence for optimism bias - college driving
college-age drivers compared their risk of being involved in a variety of described traffic accidents relative to their peers
optimism bias: believed in almost all situations they would be at less risk than other drivers
evidence for optimism bias - smokers and cancer
US national telephone survey of current smokers asked about their own risks of cancer vs the risk of the average smoker
- believed they had a lower risk of developing lung cancer than the average smoker
- perceived risk of cancer did not increase proportionally with the number of cigarettes smoked per day
- agreement with several myths, e.g. that exercise undoes most smoking effects
psychometric paradigm
suggests risk perceptions are based on a range of dimensions
attempted to create a taxonomy to understand and predict estimates of risk
ask participants to rate riskiness of hazards and then rate each on other dimensions e.g. novelty, severity, knowledge
then look at correlation between riskiness and dimensions – therefore see which dimensions matter
psychometric paradigm - which dimensions matter
this varied depending on which paper you look at (not all used in every study)
early studies used 9:
- voluntary vs involuntary
- chronic vs catastrophic
- common vs dreaded
- certain not fatal vs definitely fatal
- known to those exposed vs unknown
- immediate effects vs delayed
- known to science vs not known to science
- not controllable vs controllable
- new vs old
limitation of common vs dreaded dimension in psychometric paradigm
common vs dreaded is a weird comparison –> described as something learnt to live with and can think about calmly or is it dreaded on the level of a gut reaction
this is measuring multiple things, not just 2 ends of a scale - can be used to something but not calm about it
scoring of psychometric paradigm - 2 most impactiful factors
factor analysis of dimensions typically identifies 2 factors out of the 9:
dread and the unknown:
dread = lack of control, fatal, involuntary
unknown = new, unknown to science, effect delayed
dread = strongest correlations with global estimates of risk
can then use these 2 as two dimensions on a graph to plot different hazards or activities
evidence for psychometric paradigm
907 people in UK rated 11 old and new food hazards on 12 risk dimensions
principal components analysis = 2 main components:
- dread
- knowledge
these explained 80% of variance in perceptions
strengths of the psychometric paradigm (4)
- basic gist of psychometric paradigm replicated many times
- different dimensions matter in different situations, but agreement that Dread and unknown are important
- factor structure is pretty stable
- factors account for risk perceptions pretty well, studies in the tradition of the psychometric paradigm typically explain 70% or even more of the variance in risk perceptions
limitations of the psychometric paradigm (4)
- works best on aggregate level data (i.e., comparing different risks among groups)
–> poorer associations at individual level or for individual risks
–> “ecological fallacy” - replication of correlations and factors could be due to artefacts in the question wording (they are pretty similar)
- “risk” is often targetless – risk to me? to my family? to non-specific others?
- different properties, and different dimensions, seem to matter in different studies - unclear what is the testable prediction
social amplification of risk (SARF)
brings together previous fragmented theories to better understand how risk information is disseminated and changed through different actions and interactions
how communications of risk events pass from the sender through intermediate stations to a receiver explaining how risks are amplified or attenuated –> like chinese whispers
main thesis = risk events interact with individual psychological, social and other cultural factors in ways that either increase or decrease public perceptions of risk
social amplification and attenuation of risk
5 channels:
- sources of info - personal experience, direct communication
- info channels - social networks
- social stations - opinion leaders, cultural/social groups, govt, news
- individual stations - attention filter, decoding, heuristics, evaluation and interpretation
- institutional and social behaviour - attitude, political action, social protest
these all have ripple effects to society, industry, community and more
evidence for social amplification of risk
effect of increased media reporting about the risks associated with genetically modified food on public attitudes to the technology
survey 1= feb 1998 –> before media attention to genetic modification peaked
survey 2 = march 1999 –> media coverage was at its peak
survey 3 = july 2000 –> level of media attention was subsiding
results:
- perceptions of risk associated with genetically modified food increased during the highest levels of media coverage
- but risk perceptions subsequently reduced as coverage diminished
strengths of social amplification of risk (2)
can explain why certain risks experts characterize as small “produce massive public reactions”
helps to clarify phenomena, such as the key role of the mass media in risk communication and the influence of culture on risk processing
limitations of social amplification of risk (3)
amplification may be directed as to what are regarded as ‘exaggerated’ risks
may be too general to test empirically and particularly to seek outright falsification
formulated 30 years ago
- long before the advent of the online media environment we know today
- largely studied within traditional mass media
