Re: More on "Perception is reality"

[epirad@mchsi.com]

Ruth,



Controlling risk, such as driving a car, decreases risk 

perception.  That is why most people generally feel 

safer when their driving versus others driving the car 

since they feel in control of the situation.  Paul 

Slovic and others have many paper on the factors that 

affect risk perception.

----------------------



SEE:



Science 1987 Apr 17;236(4799):280-5  



Perception of risk.



Slovic P.



Studies of risk perception examine the judgements people 

make when they are asked to characterize and evaluate 

hazardous activities and technologies. This research 

aims to aid risk analysis and policy-making by providing 

a basis for understanding and anticipating public 

responses to hazards and improving the communication of 

risk information among lay people, technical experts, 

and decision-makers. This work assumes that those who 

promote and regulate health and safety need to 

understand how people think about and respond to risk. 

Without such understanding, well-intended policies may 

be ineffective.



--------------------------

J Hazard Mater 2001 Sep 14;86(1-3):17-24  

  

The risk game.



Slovic P.



Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, OR 97401, 

USA. pslovic@oregon.uoregon.edu



In the context of health, safety, and environmental 

decisions, the concept of risk involves value judgments 

that reflect much more than just the probability and 

consequences of the occurrence of an event. This article 

conceptualizes the act of defining and assessing risk as 

a game in which the rules must be socially negotiated 

within the context of a specific problem. This 

contextualist view of risk provides insight into why 

technical approaches to risk management often fail with 

problems such as those involving radiation and 

chemicals, where scientific experts and the public 

disagree on the nature of the risks. It also highlights 

the need for allowing the interested and affected 

parties to define and play the game, thus emphasizing 

the importance of institutional, procedural, and 

societal processes in risk management decisions.



---------------------------

Risk Anal 1999 Aug;19(4):649-59





"How exposed is exposed enough?" Lay inferences about 

chemical exposure.



MacGregor DG, Slovic P, Malmfors T.



Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon 97401, USA.



The concept of exposure is central to chemical risk 

assessment and plays an important role in communicating 

to the public about the potential health risks of 

chemicals. Research on chemical risk perception has 

found some indication that the model lay people use to 

judge chemical exposure differs from that of 

toxicologists, thereby leading to different conclusions 

about chemical safety. This paper presents the results 

of a series of studies directed toward developing a 

model for understanding how lay people interpret the 

concept of chemical exposure. The results indicate that 

people's beliefs about chemical exposure (and its risks) 

are based on two broad categories of inferences. One 

category of inferences relates to the nature in which 

contact with a chemical has taken place, including the 

amount of a chemical involved and its potential health 

consequences. A second category of inferences about 

chemical exposure relates to the pragmatics of language 

interpretation, leading to beliefs about the motives and 

purposes behind chemical risk communication. Risk 

communicators are encouraged to consider how alternative 

models of exposure and language interpretation can lead 

to conflicting conclusions on the part of the public 

about chemical safety.



----------------------------

Risk Anal 1997 Jun;17(3):303-12  





Exploring the "psychometric paradigm": comparisons 

between aggregate and individual analyses.



Marris C, Langford I, Saunderson T, O'Riordan T.



School of Environmental Sciences, University of East 

Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.



The "psychometric paradigm" developed by Slovic, 

Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein was a landmark in research 

about public attitudes toward risks. One problem with 

work, however, was that (at least initially) it did not 

attempt to distinguish between individuals or groups of 

people, except "experts" vs. "lay people." This paradigm 

produced a "cognitive map" of hazards, and the 

assumption seemed to be that the characteristics 

identified were inherent attributes of risk. This paper 

examines the validity of this assumption. A 

questionnaire survey similar to those designed by Slovic 

et al. was conducted, but the data were analyzed at both 

the aggregate level, using mean scores, and at the level 

of individuals (N = 131 Norwich residents). The results 

reported here demonstrate that (1) individuals vary in 

their perception of the same risk issue; (2) individuals 

vary in their rating of the same risks characteristics 

on the same risk issue; and (3) some of the strong 

intercorrelations observed between risk characteristics 

at the aggregate level are not supported when the same 

data are analysed at the level of individuals. Despite 

these findings, the relationship between risk 

characteristics and risk perceptions inferred by the 

psychometric paradigm did hold true at the level of 

individuals, for most--but not all--of the 

characteristics. In particular, the relationship 

between "lack of knowledge to those exposed" and risk 

perceptions appears to be a complex one, a finding which 

has important implications for risk communication 

strategies.

-------------------



Risk Anal 1991 Dec;11(4):683-96 



Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts 

of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada.



Slovic P, Layman M, Kraus N, Flynn J, Chalmers J, Gesell 

G.



Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon 97401.



This study investigates the potential impacts of the 

proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada, upon tourism, retirement and job-related 

migration, and business development in Las Vegas and the 

state. Adverse impacts may be expected to result from 

perceptions of risk, stigmatization, and socially 

amplified reactions to "unfortunate events" associated 

with the repository (major and minor accidents, 

discoveries of radiation releases, evidence of 

mismanagement, attempts to sabotage or disrupt the 

facility, etc.). The conceptual underpinnings of risk 

perception, stigmatization, and social amplification are 

discussed and empirical data are presented to 

demonstrate how nuclear images associated with Las Vegas 

and the State of Nevada might trigger adverse economic 

effects. The possibility that intense negative imagery 

associated with the repository may cause significant 

harm to Nevada's economy can no longer be ignored by 

serious attempts to assess the risks and impacts of this 

unique facility. The behavioral processes described here 

appear relevant as well to the social impact assessment 

of any proposed facility that produces, uses, 

transports, or disposes of hazardous materials.

> While driving through the night from Raleigh, NC the Charleston SC (don't 

> ask) I got to thinking about realistic and unrealistic perceptions,and it 

> struck me that the mist unrealistic risk perception that modern Americans 

> have is the risk of driiving or riding in a car.  I drove from 8PM until 

> about 1 AM, by myself, in a rental car, on interstate highways, at 70 mph, 

> passing trucks, being passed by cars and trucks going much faster than the 70 

> mph speed limit, and did I really think I would be injured or die?:  Of 

> course not, but here is a demonstrable risk that people take all the tme.  

> Moreover, while I can mitigate the risk by wearing a seat bel, obeying the 

> speed limit, etc, I cannot mitigate the risk of a drunk driver hitting me 

> head-on while driving the wrong way on the freeway (yes, we just had another 

> of those in New Mexico: four peole wiped out.  In N.M. this is not 

> infrequent.).  

> 

> Now by any observation of the frequency of fatality and injury, driving in a 

> car carries a whole lot larger risk than being exposed to radon, living near 

> a nuke plant, being in the fallout of an accident involving spent fuel 

> transportation, or even a "dirty bomb."  If just the thought of risk causes 

> panic, why don't people panic when they are driving?  Why wasn't there 

> wholesale panic when the speed limit was raised?   There are far better 

> statistics on the relation between speed and traffic deaths and injuries than 

> between low-level radiation exposure, or radon exposure, and cancer.

> 

> I think (and I'm ready for the brickbats, folks) that "radiophobia" and the 

> associated fears include a fair amount of self-delusion, whether deliberate 

> or inadvertent.  I am sure Jim Hardeman is right -- there would be clamor, at 

> least initially, to clean up every atom, etc., though I think the clamor 

> would subside.  After all, the residents of Pripyat wanted to move back.  

> Also, it's easy and convenient to blame the government or some nebulous 

> corporate entity, and to think that "the government" is paying for the 

> cleanup and forget that the source of "the government's" money is the same 

> taxpayer who is paying car insurance.  I also believe that the anti-nuclear 

> movement deliberately perpetuates and exacerbates radiophobia.  

> 

> Finally, it's fun and easy to be a victim if it doesn't hurt.   I have 

> attended many, many public hearings on nuclear matters, and there is always 

> wailing and gnashing of teeth about someone's friend or relative who had 

> cancer, but I have never seen any anti-nuke or anti-nuke sympathizer at these 

> hearings who can actually claim that he or she has beeen harmed by low-levels 

> of ionizing radiation.  Go to a public hearing on drunk driving, and there 

> are plenty of personal experiences on display.

> 

> Bottomline?  1.  Radiophobia is based largely on the LNT, for which there is 

> no evidence. 2.  There is a common perception, or belief, that exposure to 

> small amounts of ionizing radiation is  lot more risky than accumulated 

> evidence shows it to be. 3.  This is a misperception, and there is no other 

> honest way to say it.  

> 

> Ruth  

> 

> RuthF. Weiner, Ph. D.

> ruthweiner@aol.com

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

> 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/