首页 > 最新文献

Journal of Risk Research最新文献

英文 中文
Utilizing MRBQ to investigate risky rider behavior in Chinese young riders: combining the effect of Big Five personality and sensation seeking 运用MRBQ研究中国青年骑手的冒险骑行行为:结合大五人格和感觉寻求的影响
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-10-20 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2270669
Zhenhao Yu, Weina Qu, Yan Ge
AbstractThe motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire (MRBQ) is one of the most extensively used questionnaires to explore risky rider behavior worldwide. However, whether previous research adopted other scales or other versions of MRBQ, neither of them fully cover the typicality of the risky behavior in Chinese motorcyclists. Moreover, past research investigated the MRBQ while combining the joint effect of Big Five personality (BFP) and sensation seeking lacks. Our study aims to revise the Chinese version of MRBQ in young riders and explore the relationship among BFP, sensation seeking, MRBQ, and self-reported traffic violations. 278 online participants filled out the Big Five Inventory measuring BFP, the sensation seeking scale, MRBQ items selected from previous versions in other countries, and self-reported traffic violations from the traffic management system (crashes, traffic violation frequency, penalty points, and fines). Exploratory factor analysis suggested 7 factors (safety equipment, traffic errors, speed violations, control errors, stunts, traffic violations, and safety violations), and the internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.58–0.91. The hierarchical linear regression analysis showed that agreeableness and conscientiousness in BFP negatively predicted the total MRBQ score, while openness in BFP and sensation seeking positively predicted the total MRBQ score. In addition, the Poisson regression analysis suggested that all kinds of self-reported traffic violations could be positively predicted by the total MRBQ score. Path analysis suggested the fully mediating role of sensation seeking. In conclusion, the Chinese version of the MRBQ is useful for future studies and the sensation seeking plays a mediating role between the Big Five personality and MRBQ.Keywords: Safety of motorcyclistsmotorcycle rider behavior questionnairebig five personalitysensation seekingmediation model Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)Consent to participateInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.Data availability statementPlease email the corresponding author for raw data and materials.Additional informationFundingThis study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 32071064, 32071066, 32271132, 31771225, 71971073.
摘要摩托车骑手行为问卷(MRBQ)是世界范围内应用最广泛的摩托车骑手危险行为调查问卷之一。然而,以往的研究是否采用其他量表或其他版本的MRBQ,都没有完全覆盖中国摩托车手危险行为的典型性。此外,以往的研究还缺乏将大五人格(BFP)与感觉寻求的共同作用结合起来考察MRBQ的研究。本研究旨在修订中国年轻车手的MRBQ,并探讨BFP、感觉寻求、MRBQ和自述交通违规之间的关系。278名在线参与者填写了衡量BFP的五大量表、感觉寻求量表、从其他国家以前的版本中选择的MRBQ项目,以及交通管理系统中自我报告的交通违规行为(撞车、交通违规频率、罚分和罚款)。探索性因子分析得出7个因素(安全设备、交通错误、速度违规、控制错误、特技、交通违规、安全违规),内部一致性信度范围为0.58 ~ 0.91。层次线性回归分析显示,友善性和尽责性对MRBQ总分有负向预测,开放性和感觉寻求性对MRBQ总分有正向预测。此外,泊松回归分析表明,MRBQ总分对自述的各类交通违法行为均有正向预测作用。通径分析表明,感觉寻求具有充分的中介作用。综上所述,中文版本的MRBQ对未来的研究是有用的,感觉寻求在大五人格和MRBQ之间起中介作用。关键词:摩托车手安全摩托车手行为问卷大五人格感觉寻求中介模型披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突同意参与研究的所有参与者均获得知情同意。数据可用性声明原始数据和材料请发电子邮件给通讯作者。基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目(32071064、32071066、32271132、31771225、71971073)。
{"title":"Utilizing MRBQ to investigate risky rider behavior in Chinese young riders: combining the effect of Big Five personality and sensation seeking","authors":"Zhenhao Yu, Weina Qu, Yan Ge","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2270669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2270669","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire (MRBQ) is one of the most extensively used questionnaires to explore risky rider behavior worldwide. However, whether previous research adopted other scales or other versions of MRBQ, neither of them fully cover the typicality of the risky behavior in Chinese motorcyclists. Moreover, past research investigated the MRBQ while combining the joint effect of Big Five personality (BFP) and sensation seeking lacks. Our study aims to revise the Chinese version of MRBQ in young riders and explore the relationship among BFP, sensation seeking, MRBQ, and self-reported traffic violations. 278 online participants filled out the Big Five Inventory measuring BFP, the sensation seeking scale, MRBQ items selected from previous versions in other countries, and self-reported traffic violations from the traffic management system (crashes, traffic violation frequency, penalty points, and fines). Exploratory factor analysis suggested 7 factors (safety equipment, traffic errors, speed violations, control errors, stunts, traffic violations, and safety violations), and the internal consistency reliability ranged from 0.58–0.91. The hierarchical linear regression analysis showed that agreeableness and conscientiousness in BFP negatively predicted the total MRBQ score, while openness in BFP and sensation seeking positively predicted the total MRBQ score. In addition, the Poisson regression analysis suggested that all kinds of self-reported traffic violations could be positively predicted by the total MRBQ score. Path analysis suggested the fully mediating role of sensation seeking. In conclusion, the Chinese version of the MRBQ is useful for future studies and the sensation seeking plays a mediating role between the Big Five personality and MRBQ.Keywords: Safety of motorcyclistsmotorcycle rider behavior questionnairebig five personalitysensation seekingmediation model Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)Consent to participateInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.Data availability statementPlease email the corresponding author for raw data and materials.Additional informationFundingThis study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 32071064, 32071066, 32271132, 31771225, 71971073.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135617217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Information seeking and information avoidance about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination: knowledge, personal control, or affect? 关于全氟烷基和多氟烷基物质(PFAS)污染的信息寻求和信息回避:知识、个人控制还是影响?
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2270605
Zhuling Liu, Janet Z. Yang
AbstractApplying the risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model, this study explores the antecedents to information seeking and information avoidance about a relatively novel risk – per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Based on an experimental survey, we found that current knowledge, informational subjective norms, and risk perception are positively related to information seeking and information avoidance. Perceived personal control is positively related to information avoidance, but not related to information seeking. Fear is positively related to information seeking, but sadness is not related to either seeking or avoidance. Lastly, information seeking and information avoidance are associated with preventive behaviors related to PFAS contamination in the opposite direction.Keywords: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)information seekinginformation avoidancepreventive behaviors Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 All collinearity diagnostics were satisfactory in the regression models.
摘要应用风险信息搜索与处理(RISP)模型,探讨了一种较为新颖的全氟和多氟烷基物质(PFAS)污染的信息搜索和信息回避的前因由。基于实验调查,我们发现当前知识、信息主观规范和风险感知与信息寻求和信息回避呈正相关。感知个人控制与信息回避正相关,与信息寻求不相关。恐惧与信息寻求呈正相关,但悲伤与信息寻求或回避均无关系。最后,信息寻求和信息回避与PFAS污染相关的预防行为呈相反方向相关。关键词:全氟烷基和多氟烷基物质(PFAS)信息搜寻信息回避预防行为披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。注1回归模型的共线性诊断均令人满意。
{"title":"Information seeking and information avoidance about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination: knowledge, personal control, or affect?","authors":"Zhuling Liu, Janet Z. Yang","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2270605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2270605","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractApplying the risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model, this study explores the antecedents to information seeking and information avoidance about a relatively novel risk – per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Based on an experimental survey, we found that current knowledge, informational subjective norms, and risk perception are positively related to information seeking and information avoidance. Perceived personal control is positively related to information avoidance, but not related to information seeking. Fear is positively related to information seeking, but sadness is not related to either seeking or avoidance. Lastly, information seeking and information avoidance are associated with preventive behaviors related to PFAS contamination in the opposite direction.Keywords: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)information seekinginformation avoidancepreventive behaviors Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 All collinearity diagnostics were satisfactory in the regression models.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135779029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Waste-to-energy risk perception typology: health, politics and environmental impacts 废物转化为能源风险认知类型:健康、政治和环境影响
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-10-16 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2259402
Mikel Subiza-Pérez, Aiora Zabala, Daniel Groten, Laura Vozmediano, César San Juan, Jesús Ibarluzea
Where strategies to reduce and recycle urban solid waste are insufficient, waste incineration is proposed as second-best management. Waste-to-energy facilities often raise remarkable public controversy, which the Not-In-My-Backyard effect does not explain sufficiently. Heterogeneous concerns lead to diverse risk perception profiles that standard psychometric scales cannot uncover. We explore this diversity of profiles by analyzing risk perceptions about a recently built waste-to-energy facility in Gipuzkoa (Spain), a case underlined by a decades-long public debate about waste management alternatives. Using Q, a semi-qualitative method, we identify risk perceptions within a diverse sample of fifty participants, including residents at different distances to the facility. We identify three main types of risk perception based on the relative importance respondents gave to 26 possible perceived risks of the facility. We define risk perception types according to the concerns that respondents with similar views emphasized most: human health, politics and institutions, and local social-ecological impacts. Whereas human-health and social-ecological concerns could be partially addressed with information—including timely and accessible reporting of effluent monitoring—and improved safety, building institutional trust to mitigate the concerns in the second risk perception type requires longer-term dynamics. Understanding heterogeneous risk profiles as done in this study can support adequate communication strategies and help policymakers prioritize governance areas to improve. Our results contribute to understanding social-environmental risk perceptions associated with controversial facilities. Using an approach that is new in this domain, these results add nuanced understanding that complements the quantitative profiling prevalent in the literature on risk perceptions and about waste-to-energy plants.
如果减少和回收城市固体废物的策略不足,则建议将垃圾焚烧作为次优管理方法。垃圾转化为能源的设施经常引起公众的极大争议,而“不在我家后院”效应并不能充分解释这一点。异质关注导致标准心理测量量表无法揭示的不同风险感知概况。我们通过分析最近在Gipuzkoa(西班牙)建成的一个废物转化为能源的设施的风险认知来探讨这种情况的多样性,这个案例在长达数十年的关于废物管理替代方案的公众辩论中得到了强调。使用半定性方法Q,我们在50个参与者的不同样本中识别风险感知,包括与设施距离不同的居民。我们根据受访者对设施的26个可能感知风险的相对重要性确定了三种主要类型的风险感知。我们根据持类似观点的受访者最关注的问题来定义风险感知类型:人类健康、政治和制度以及当地社会生态影响。虽然人类健康和社会生态问题可以通过信息(包括及时和可获取的流出物监测报告)和提高安全性来部分解决,但建立机构信任以减轻对第二种风险感知类型的担忧需要长期的动力。本研究中所做的理解异质风险概况可以支持适当的沟通策略,并帮助决策者优先考虑需要改进的治理领域。我们的研究结果有助于理解与有争议的设施相关的社会环境风险认知。使用该领域的新方法,这些结果增加了细致入微的理解,补充了关于风险认知和废物转化为能源工厂的文献中普遍存在的定量分析。
{"title":"Waste-to-energy risk perception typology: health, politics and environmental impacts","authors":"Mikel Subiza-Pérez, Aiora Zabala, Daniel Groten, Laura Vozmediano, César San Juan, Jesús Ibarluzea","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2259402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2259402","url":null,"abstract":"Where strategies to reduce and recycle urban solid waste are insufficient, waste incineration is proposed as second-best management. Waste-to-energy facilities often raise remarkable public controversy, which the Not-In-My-Backyard effect does not explain sufficiently. Heterogeneous concerns lead to diverse risk perception profiles that standard psychometric scales cannot uncover. We explore this diversity of profiles by analyzing risk perceptions about a recently built waste-to-energy facility in Gipuzkoa (Spain), a case underlined by a decades-long public debate about waste management alternatives. Using Q, a semi-qualitative method, we identify risk perceptions within a diverse sample of fifty participants, including residents at different distances to the facility. We identify three main types of risk perception based on the relative importance respondents gave to 26 possible perceived risks of the facility. We define risk perception types according to the concerns that respondents with similar views emphasized most: human health, politics and institutions, and local social-ecological impacts. Whereas human-health and social-ecological concerns could be partially addressed with information—including timely and accessible reporting of effluent monitoring—and improved safety, building institutional trust to mitigate the concerns in the second risk perception type requires longer-term dynamics. Understanding heterogeneous risk profiles as done in this study can support adequate communication strategies and help policymakers prioritize governance areas to improve. Our results contribute to understanding social-environmental risk perceptions associated with controversial facilities. Using an approach that is new in this domain, these results add nuanced understanding that complements the quantitative profiling prevalent in the literature on risk perceptions and about waste-to-energy plants.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136115974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Should we use natural gas in our homes? Risk perceptions from the U.S 我们应该在家里使用天然气吗?来自美国的风险认知
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2264314
Adam Mayer, Ellison Carter
AbstractMultiple municipalities in the U.S. have banned natural gas hook-ups in new home construction. Several state governments have pre-empted those bans. Yet little is known about public perceptions of natural gas appliances in the home. We used survey data to evaluate risk perceptions associated with natural gas appliances and investigate potential demographic and ideological effects on risk perceptions. We find little political polarization or “white male” effects, but those who are dissatisfied with indoor air quality and concerned about climate change have heightened risk perceptions. Overall, natural gas risk perceptions are low. However, as of late 2022, the health implications of natural gas use in the home and potential mitigation policy have entered public discourse, implying that these risks may become more salient and politically charged. We conclude by discussing implications for indoor environments and policy.Keywords: natural gasindoor airrisk perception AcknowledgementWe acknowledge the city of Fort Collins, the Bloomberg Foundation Mayors Challenge, and the JPB Foundation Harvard Environmental Health Fellowship for providing funding for this research.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
摘要美国多个城市已经禁止在新住宅建设中使用天然气。几个邦的政府已经抢先实施了这些禁令。然而,公众对家用天然气设备的看法却知之甚少。我们使用调查数据来评估与天然气器具相关的风险认知,并调查潜在的人口和意识形态对风险认知的影响。我们没有发现政治两极分化或“白人男性”效应,但那些对室内空气质量不满意、关注气候变化的人对风险的认识有所提高。总体而言,人们对天然气风险的认知较低。然而,截至2022年底,家庭使用天然气对健康的影响和潜在的缓解政策已进入公众话语,这意味着这些风险可能变得更加突出,并具有政治色彩。最后,我们讨论了对室内环境和政策的影响。我们感谢柯林斯堡市、彭博基金会市长挑战赛和JPB基金会哈佛环境健康奖学金为本研究提供资金。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。
{"title":"Should we use natural gas in our homes? Risk perceptions from the U.S","authors":"Adam Mayer, Ellison Carter","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2264314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2264314","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractMultiple municipalities in the U.S. have banned natural gas hook-ups in new home construction. Several state governments have pre-empted those bans. Yet little is known about public perceptions of natural gas appliances in the home. We used survey data to evaluate risk perceptions associated with natural gas appliances and investigate potential demographic and ideological effects on risk perceptions. We find little political polarization or “white male” effects, but those who are dissatisfied with indoor air quality and concerned about climate change have heightened risk perceptions. Overall, natural gas risk perceptions are low. However, as of late 2022, the health implications of natural gas use in the home and potential mitigation policy have entered public discourse, implying that these risks may become more salient and politically charged. We conclude by discussing implications for indoor environments and policy.Keywords: natural gasindoor airrisk perception AcknowledgementWe acknowledge the city of Fort Collins, the Bloomberg Foundation Mayors Challenge, and the JPB Foundation Harvard Environmental Health Fellowship for providing funding for this research.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135858811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Combining uncertainty information with AI recommendations supports calibration with domain knowledge 将不确定度信息与人工智能建议相结合,支持使用领域知识进行校准
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2259406
Harishankar Vasudevanallur Subramanian, Casey Canfield, Daniel B. Shank, Matthew Kinnison
AbstractThe use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) decision support is increasing in high-stakes contexts, such as healthcare, defense, and finance. Uncertainty information may help users better leverage AI predictions, especially when combined with their domain knowledge. We conducted a human-subject experiment with an online sample to examine the effects of presenting uncertainty information with AI recommendations. The experimental stimuli and task, which included identifying plant and animal images, are from an existing image recognition deep learning model, a popular approach to AI. The uncertainty information was predicted probabilities for whether each label was the true label. This information was presented numerically and visually. In the study, we tested the effect of AI recommendations in a within-subject comparison and uncertainty information in a between-subject comparison. The results suggest that AI recommendations increased both participants’ accuracy and confidence. Further, providing uncertainty information significantly increased accuracy but not confidence, suggesting that it may be effective for reducing overconfidence. In this task, participants tended to have higher domain knowledge for animals than plants based on a self-reported measure of domain knowledge. Participants with more domain knowledge were appropriately less confident when uncertainty information was provided. This suggests that people use AI and uncertainty information differently, such as an expert versus second opinion, depending on their level of domain knowledge. These results suggest that if presented appropriately, uncertainty information can potentially decrease overconfidence that is induced by using AI recommendations.Keywords: Overconfidenceartificial intelligenceuncertaintyhuman-AI teamsrisk communication AcknowledgmentsWe thank Cihan Dagli, Krista Lentine, Mark Schnitzler, and Henry Randall for their insights on the design of AI decision support systems.Disclosure statementThe authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by a National Science Foundation Award #2026324.
摘要人工智能(AI)决策支持在医疗、国防和金融等高风险环境中的应用越来越多。不确定性信息可以帮助用户更好地利用人工智能预测,特别是当与他们的领域知识相结合时。我们用在线样本进行了一项人体实验,以检验用人工智能推荐呈现不确定性信息的效果。实验刺激和任务,包括识别植物和动物图像,来自现有的图像识别深度学习模型,这是一种流行的人工智能方法。不确定性信息是每个标签是否为真实标签的预测概率。这些信息以数字和视觉方式呈现。在这项研究中,我们测试了人工智能推荐在主题内比较中的效果,以及在主题间比较中的不确定性信息。结果表明,人工智能建议提高了参与者的准确性和信心。此外,提供不确定性信息显著提高了准确性,但没有提高信心,这表明它可能对减少过度自信有效。在这项任务中,基于自我报告的领域知识测量,参与者倾向于对动物的领域知识比植物的领域知识高。当提供不确定性信息时,具有更多领域知识的参与者适当地降低了信心。这表明人们使用人工智能和不确定性信息的方式不同,比如专家和第二意见,这取决于他们的领域知识水平。这些结果表明,如果呈现得当,不确定性信息可以潜在地减少使用人工智能推荐引起的过度自信。我们感谢Cihan Dagli、Krista Lentine、Mark Schnitzler和Henry Randall对人工智能决策支持系统设计的见解。披露声明作者报告无竞争利益需要申报。本工作得到了国家科学基金奖#2026324的支持。
{"title":"Combining uncertainty information with AI recommendations supports calibration with domain knowledge","authors":"Harishankar Vasudevanallur Subramanian, Casey Canfield, Daniel B. Shank, Matthew Kinnison","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2259406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2259406","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) decision support is increasing in high-stakes contexts, such as healthcare, defense, and finance. Uncertainty information may help users better leverage AI predictions, especially when combined with their domain knowledge. We conducted a human-subject experiment with an online sample to examine the effects of presenting uncertainty information with AI recommendations. The experimental stimuli and task, which included identifying plant and animal images, are from an existing image recognition deep learning model, a popular approach to AI. The uncertainty information was predicted probabilities for whether each label was the true label. This information was presented numerically and visually. In the study, we tested the effect of AI recommendations in a within-subject comparison and uncertainty information in a between-subject comparison. The results suggest that AI recommendations increased both participants’ accuracy and confidence. Further, providing uncertainty information significantly increased accuracy but not confidence, suggesting that it may be effective for reducing overconfidence. In this task, participants tended to have higher domain knowledge for animals than plants based on a self-reported measure of domain knowledge. Participants with more domain knowledge were appropriately less confident when uncertainty information was provided. This suggests that people use AI and uncertainty information differently, such as an expert versus second opinion, depending on their level of domain knowledge. These results suggest that if presented appropriately, uncertainty information can potentially decrease overconfidence that is induced by using AI recommendations.Keywords: Overconfidenceartificial intelligenceuncertaintyhuman-AI teamsrisk communication AcknowledgmentsWe thank Cihan Dagli, Krista Lentine, Mark Schnitzler, and Henry Randall for their insights on the design of AI decision support systems.Disclosure statementThe authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by a National Science Foundation Award #2026324.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135858978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
COVID-19 risk perception measures: factoring and prediction of behavioral intentions and policy support COVID-19风险感知措施:行为意图和政策支持的因素分析和预测
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-10-11 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2264301
Branden B. Johnson, Byungdoo Kim
AbstractAlthough early concepts of risk perception measures distinguished cognitive from affective items, until recently multi-dimensional taxonomies were absent from risk perception studies, and even more from tests of their association with behavior or policy support. Six longitudinal panel surveys on U.S. COVID-19 views (n = 2004 February 2020, ending April 2021) allowed testing of these relationships among ≤ 10 risk perception items measured in each wave. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed consistent distinctions between personal (conditioning perceived risk on taking further or no further protective action), collective (U.S., global), affective (concern, dread), and severity (estimates of eventual total U.S. infections and deaths) measures, while affect (good-bad feelings) and duration (how long people expect the outbreak to last) did not fit with their assumed affective and severity (respectively) parallels. Collective and affective/affect risk perceptions most strongly predicted both behavioral intentions and policy support for mask wearing, avoidance of large public gatherings, and vaccination, controlling for personal risk perception (which might be partly reflected in the affective/affect effects) and other measures. These findings underline the importance of multi-dimensionality (e.g. not just asking about personal risk perceptions) in designing risk perception research, even when trying to explain personal protective actions.Keywords: behavioral intentionsCOVID-19policy supportRisk perceptiontaxonomy Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 A corollary might be that the global risk perception measure also belongs in this cluster, particularly for duration, which does impose a geographical limit on the area where the pandemic “ends.” A separate analysis (unreported here) showed results similar to those for this fifth model.2 Backup exploratory factor analyses for Waves 2-6 identified six factors out of the 10 items: collective, severity (infection, deaths), personal, affect, duration, and dread. Concern loaded on both collective and personal factors (> .49 and > .41, respectively). The personal connection might be prompted by the measure’s reference to “where you live”; its association with collective measures is unclear. Models clustering personal, collective, and concern measures, including affect and duration as single-item factors, had poor fit (e.g. Wave 2: chi-square/df = 26.849; RMSEA = .127 [.118, .135]; CFI = .928; AIC = 42,991.443).Additional informationFundingThe work contributing to this article was funded by the United States National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2022216.
尽管早期的风险感知测量概念区分了认知和情感项目,但直到最近,多维分类在风险感知研究中都是缺失的,甚至在风险感知与行为或政策支持的关联测试中更是缺失的。关于美国COVID-19观点的六项纵向小组调查(n = 2004年2月至2021年4月)允许在每波测量的≤10个风险感知项目之间测试这些关系。验证性因素分析揭示了个人(对采取进一步或不采取进一步保护行动的感知风险)、集体(美国、全球)、情感(担忧、恐惧)和严重程度(对美国最终感染和死亡总数的估计)措施之间的一致区别,而影响(好坏的感觉)和持续时间(人们预计疫情持续多久)与假设的情感和严重程度(分别)不相符。集体和情感/影响风险感知最能预测佩戴口罩、避免大型公共集会、接种疫苗、控制个人风险感知(可能部分反映在情感/影响效应中)和其他措施的行为意图和政策支持。这些发现强调了多维度(例如,不只是询问个人风险感知)在设计风险感知研究中的重要性,甚至在试图解释个人保护行动时也是如此。关键词:行为意向政策支持风险感知分类披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。注1一个推论可能是,全球风险感知措施也属于这一类,特别是就持续时间而言,这确实对大流行“结束”的地区施加了地理限制。另一项单独的分析(此处未报道)显示了与第五种模型相似的结果波浪2-6的备份探索性因素分析从10个项目中确定了6个因素:集体、严重程度(感染、死亡)、个人、影响、持续时间和恐惧。对集体和个人因素的关注(分别> .49和> .41)。个人联系可能是由测量中提到的“你住在哪里”引起的;它与集体措施的关系尚不清楚。将个人、集体和关注措施聚类的模型,包括影响和持续时间作为单项因素,拟合度较差(例如,波2:卡方/df = 26.849;Rmsea = .127[。]118年,.135];Cfi = .928;Aic = 42,991.443)。本文的工作由美国国家科学基金会资助,资助号为2022216。
{"title":"COVID-19 risk perception measures: factoring and prediction of behavioral intentions and policy support","authors":"Branden B. Johnson, Byungdoo Kim","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2264301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2264301","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractAlthough early concepts of risk perception measures distinguished cognitive from affective items, until recently multi-dimensional taxonomies were absent from risk perception studies, and even more from tests of their association with behavior or policy support. Six longitudinal panel surveys on U.S. COVID-19 views (n = 2004 February 2020, ending April 2021) allowed testing of these relationships among ≤ 10 risk perception items measured in each wave. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed consistent distinctions between personal (conditioning perceived risk on taking further or no further protective action), collective (U.S., global), affective (concern, dread), and severity (estimates of eventual total U.S. infections and deaths) measures, while affect (good-bad feelings) and duration (how long people expect the outbreak to last) did not fit with their assumed affective and severity (respectively) parallels. Collective and affective/affect risk perceptions most strongly predicted both behavioral intentions and policy support for mask wearing, avoidance of large public gatherings, and vaccination, controlling for personal risk perception (which might be partly reflected in the affective/affect effects) and other measures. These findings underline the importance of multi-dimensionality (e.g. not just asking about personal risk perceptions) in designing risk perception research, even when trying to explain personal protective actions.Keywords: behavioral intentionsCOVID-19policy supportRisk perceptiontaxonomy Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 A corollary might be that the global risk perception measure also belongs in this cluster, particularly for duration, which does impose a geographical limit on the area where the pandemic “ends.” A separate analysis (unreported here) showed results similar to those for this fifth model.2 Backup exploratory factor analyses for Waves 2-6 identified six factors out of the 10 items: collective, severity (infection, deaths), personal, affect, duration, and dread. Concern loaded on both collective and personal factors (> .49 and > .41, respectively). The personal connection might be prompted by the measure’s reference to “where you live”; its association with collective measures is unclear. Models clustering personal, collective, and concern measures, including affect and duration as single-item factors, had poor fit (e.g. Wave 2: chi-square/df = 26.849; RMSEA = .127 [.118, .135]; CFI = .928; AIC = 42,991.443).Additional informationFundingThe work contributing to this article was funded by the United States National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2022216.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136098452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Using artificial intelligence (AI)? Risk and opportunity perception of AI predict people’s willingness to use AI 使用人工智能?对人工智能的风险和机会感知预测了人们使用人工智能的意愿
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-10-11 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2249927
Rebekka Schwesig, Irina Brich, Jürgen Buder, Markus Huff, Nadia Said
AbstractSurveys worldwide show that the public perceives artificial intelligence (AI) as a double-edged sword: A risk and an opportunity. However, how this ambiguous perception of AI is related to people’s willingness to use AI-based applications has yet to be investigated. To this end, two online experiments were conducted, including two samples, N = 246 and N = 495 (quota-sample, representative for age and gender). As hypothesized, people’s risk-opportunity perception of AI applications correlated positively with the probability of using AI. Exploratory analyses indicated that people’s willingness to use AI significantly depended on the context of AI use (medicine vs. transport vs. media vs. psychology). This research expands existing behavioral research by investigating ambiguous and not solely risk-taking behavior for different AI application contexts. Study results motivate the investigation of causal-effect relations and underline the need to understand risk and opportunity perception stability across different contexts of AI use.Keywords: Risk perceptionopportunity perceptionartificial intelligencebehaviorconfidence Ethical approvalAPA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of both studies reported in this article and informed consent was collected from the participants at the beginning of the study. Both studies were approved by the ethics committee of the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen.Authors’ contributionsNS, IB, JB, and MH developed the research idea. NS administered the whole project and developed the study concepts. Both, RS and NS developed the methodology of the studies and analyzed the data. RS was responsible for data collection and data visualization. RS and NS wrote the original draft. All authors were responsible for reviewing and editing the original draft. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementData of both studies are freely accessible under http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597 (Schwesig and Said 2021, dataset). The analysis code (R) that produces all results and figures of this article are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597. Before data collection, both experimental studies were preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/CVC_CRQ (study 1) and https://aspredicted.org/SR3_8Q3 (study 2).Notes1 Note, that we preregistered that people’s AI knowledge works as a moderator on the association of risk and opportunity perception and behavior towards AI as hypothesis 2 for the second study.2 Note, that for study 2 there was a significant main effect of knowledge when we did not control for age, gender, and education, and entering knowledge as main effect only: Χ2Study2(2) = 4.36, p = .037, OR =7.42, 95% CI [1.12, 49.37].3 Note, that for study 2 there was a significant main effect of confidence when we did not control for age, gender, and ed
摘要全球调查显示,公众认为人工智能(AI)是一把双刃剑:既是风险,也是机遇。然而,这种对人工智能的模糊认知与人们使用基于人工智能的应用程序的意愿之间的关系还有待调查。为此,我们进行了两次在线实验,包括两个样本,N = 246和N = 495(配额样本,年龄和性别具有代表性)。根据假设,人们对人工智能应用的风险-机会感知与使用人工智能的概率正相关。探索性分析表明,人们使用人工智能的意愿在很大程度上取决于人工智能使用的背景(医学、交通、媒体、心理学)。本研究扩展了现有的行为研究,研究了不同人工智能应用环境下的模糊行为,而不仅仅是冒险行为。研究结果激发了对因果关系的调查,并强调了在不同的人工智能使用背景下理解风险和机会感知稳定性的必要性。关键词:风险感知机会感知人工智能行为自信伦理认可本文报道的两项研究均遵循apa伦理标准,并在研究开始时收集了参与者的知情同意。这两项研究都得到了宾根市莱布尼茨研究所(Leibniz-Institut fr Wissensmedien)伦理委员会的批准。作者的贡献(sns, IB, JB, MH)发展了研究思路。NS管理了整个项目并制定了研究概念。RS和NS都制定了研究方法并分析了数据。RS负责数据收集和数据可视化。RS和NS撰写了最初的草案。所有作者都负责审稿和编辑初稿。所有作者都同意提交最终版本的手稿。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。数据可用性声明两项研究的数据均可在http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597 (Schwesig and Said 2021,数据集)免费获取。生成本文所有结果和图表的分析代码(R)可从http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597获得。在收集数据之前,两项实验研究都进行了预注册:https://aspredicted.org/CVC_CRQ(研究1)和https://aspredicted.org/SR3_8Q3(研究2)。注1注意,我们在第二项研究的假设2中预注册了人们的人工智能知识在风险和机会感知与人工智能行为之间的关联中起调节作用注意,在研究2中,当我们不控制年龄、性别和教育程度,只将知识作为主要影响因素时,知识的主效应显著:Χ2Study2(2) = 4.36, p = 0.037, OR =7.42, 95% CI [1.12, 49.37] 3值得注意的是,在研究2中,当我们不控制年龄、性别和教育程度,并仅将信心作为主要影响因素时,信心的主效应显著:Χ2Study2(2) = 5.12, p = 0.024, OR =1.22, 95% CI[1.02, 1.44]。其他信息资金数据收集由德国宾根莱布尼茨研究所(Leibniz-Institut fr Wissensmedien)的内部资金资助。
{"title":"Using artificial intelligence (AI)? Risk and opportunity perception of AI predict people’s willingness to use AI","authors":"Rebekka Schwesig, Irina Brich, Jürgen Buder, Markus Huff, Nadia Said","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2249927","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2249927","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractSurveys worldwide show that the public perceives artificial intelligence (AI) as a double-edged sword: A risk and an opportunity. However, how this ambiguous perception of AI is related to people’s willingness to use AI-based applications has yet to be investigated. To this end, two online experiments were conducted, including two samples, N = 246 and N = 495 (quota-sample, representative for age and gender). As hypothesized, people’s risk-opportunity perception of AI applications correlated positively with the probability of using AI. Exploratory analyses indicated that people’s willingness to use AI significantly depended on the context of AI use (medicine vs. transport vs. media vs. psychology). This research expands existing behavioral research by investigating ambiguous and not solely risk-taking behavior for different AI application contexts. Study results motivate the investigation of causal-effect relations and underline the need to understand risk and opportunity perception stability across different contexts of AI use.Keywords: Risk perceptionopportunity perceptionartificial intelligencebehaviorconfidence Ethical approvalAPA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of both studies reported in this article and informed consent was collected from the participants at the beginning of the study. Both studies were approved by the ethics committee of the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen.Authors’ contributionsNS, IB, JB, and MH developed the research idea. NS administered the whole project and developed the study concepts. Both, RS and NS developed the methodology of the studies and analyzed the data. RS was responsible for data collection and data visualization. RS and NS wrote the original draft. All authors were responsible for reviewing and editing the original draft. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementData of both studies are freely accessible under http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597 (Schwesig and Said 2021, dataset). The analysis code (R) that produces all results and figures of this article are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597. Before data collection, both experimental studies were preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/CVC_CRQ (study 1) and https://aspredicted.org/SR3_8Q3 (study 2).Notes1 Note, that we preregistered that people’s AI knowledge works as a moderator on the association of risk and opportunity perception and behavior towards AI as hypothesis 2 for the second study.2 Note, that for study 2 there was a significant main effect of knowledge when we did not control for age, gender, and education, and entering knowledge as main effect only: Χ2Study2(2) = 4.36, p = .037, OR =7.42, 95% CI [1.12, 49.37].3 Note, that for study 2 there was a significant main effect of confidence when we did not control for age, gender, and ed","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136210552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Foolproof: why we fall for misinformation and how to build immunity by Sander Van Der Linden book review Foolproof: Why We Fall for Misinformation and How to Build Immunity by Sander van der Linden, 4th Estate, London 《万无一失:我们为什么会轻信错误信息,如何建立免疫力》,桑德·范德·林登著,伦敦第四庄园出版社
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2259411
Sarah Duckett, George Warren
"Foolproof: why we fall for misinformation and how to build immunity by Sander Van Der Linden book review." Journal of Risk Research, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), pp. 1–2
《万无一失:我们为什么会轻信错误信息,以及如何建立免疫力》桑德·范德林登书评《风险研究杂志》,第1-2页
{"title":"Foolproof: why we fall for misinformation and how to build immunity by Sander Van Der Linden book review <b>Foolproof: Why We Fall for Misinformation and How to Build Immunity</b> by Sander van der Linden, 4th Estate, London","authors":"Sarah Duckett, George Warren","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2259411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2259411","url":null,"abstract":"\"Foolproof: why we fall for misinformation and how to build immunity by Sander Van Der Linden book review.\" Journal of Risk Research, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), pp. 1–2","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135859782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The influence of COVID-19 Mortality Rate Formats on Emotional Reactions, Risk perception, and self-protective Behavioral Intentions COVID-19死亡率格式对情绪反应、风险感知和自我保护行为意愿的影响
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-09-22 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2259415
Giulia Priolo, Martina Vacondio, Stephan Dickert, Nicolao Bonini
AbstractWe investigated whether different Mortality Rate Formats used to express the same objective probability affected people’s Emotional reactions, Risk perception, and protective behavioral intentions. A sample from the Italian population (N = 604) was exposed to six different formats (i.e. Absolute value; Raw ratio; 1 in X; Verbal; Percentage; Probability) to report the mortality rate of COVID-19 in a between-subject design. In line with expectations, the Probability format led to lower emotional reactions compared to all the other formats. Moreover, results from a path analysis revealed that emotional reactions predicted risk perception. The Mortality Rate Formats also had an indirect effect on Behavioral Intentions to protect oneself, which was mediated by emotional reactions and risk perception. The effect sizes of these indirect effects ranged from small to medium. The direct effect of risk on intentions was found to differ among two dimensions of risk. Affective Risk led to higher Behavioral Intentions, while Deliberative Risk had the opposite effect. We discuss these results in line with the ongoing debate regarding the role played by risk scientists during the pandemic and offer practical implications for risk management during health crises like COVID-19.Keywords: Risk perceptionemotionsBehavioral IntentionscommunicationCOVID-19 Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe dataset is available on the OSF platform and accessible through the following link: https://osf.io/x49uy/Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the University of Trento under Grant Bando di Ateneo COVID-19.
摘要本研究探讨了表达相同客观概率的不同死亡率格式是否会影响人们的情绪反应、风险感知和保护行为意图。来自意大利人群的样本(N = 604)暴露于六种不同的格式(即绝对值;原始比例;1 in X;口头的;百分比;概率)在受试者间设计中报告COVID-19的死亡率。与预期一致,与所有其他格式相比,概率格式导致了较低的情绪反应。此外,通径分析的结果显示,情绪反应可以预测风险感知。死亡率格式对自我保护行为意图也有间接影响,这种影响是由情绪反应和风险感知介导的。这些间接效应的效应大小从小到中等不等。风险对意向的直接影响在风险的两个维度上是不同的。情感性风险导致较高的行为意向,而审慎风险则相反。我们根据正在进行的关于风险科学家在大流行期间所发挥作用的辩论来讨论这些结果,并为COVID-19等健康危机期间的风险管理提供实际意义。关键词:风险感知情绪行为意向沟通covid -19披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。数据可用性声明该数据集可在OSF平台上获得,并可通过以下链接访问:https://osf.io/x49uy/Additional information资助本工作由特伦托大学在Grant Bando di Ateneo COVID-19下支持。
{"title":"The influence of COVID-19 Mortality Rate Formats on Emotional Reactions, Risk perception, and self-protective Behavioral Intentions","authors":"Giulia Priolo, Martina Vacondio, Stephan Dickert, Nicolao Bonini","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2259415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2259415","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractWe investigated whether different Mortality Rate Formats used to express the same objective probability affected people’s Emotional reactions, Risk perception, and protective behavioral intentions. A sample from the Italian population (N = 604) was exposed to six different formats (i.e. Absolute value; Raw ratio; 1 in X; Verbal; Percentage; Probability) to report the mortality rate of COVID-19 in a between-subject design. In line with expectations, the Probability format led to lower emotional reactions compared to all the other formats. Moreover, results from a path analysis revealed that emotional reactions predicted risk perception. The Mortality Rate Formats also had an indirect effect on Behavioral Intentions to protect oneself, which was mediated by emotional reactions and risk perception. The effect sizes of these indirect effects ranged from small to medium. The direct effect of risk on intentions was found to differ among two dimensions of risk. Affective Risk led to higher Behavioral Intentions, while Deliberative Risk had the opposite effect. We discuss these results in line with the ongoing debate regarding the role played by risk scientists during the pandemic and offer practical implications for risk management during health crises like COVID-19.Keywords: Risk perceptionemotionsBehavioral IntentionscommunicationCOVID-19 Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe dataset is available on the OSF platform and accessible through the following link: https://osf.io/x49uy/Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the University of Trento under Grant Bando di Ateneo COVID-19.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136017111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Dread and unknown characteristics of particulate matter pollution: cognitive and affective routes to air pollution prevention 颗粒物污染的恐惧和未知特征:预防空气污染的认知和情感途径
4区 管理学 Q1 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2023-09-22 DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2259399
Soo Jung Hong, Yungwook Kim
AbstractThis study investigates the effect of dread and unknown risks on individuals’ cognitive and affective responses and decision-making related to particulate matter (PM) air pollution. In particular, we investigate how dread and unknown risks play different roles in forming the cognitive and affective routes that affect the South Korean public’s intentions to reduce PM air pollution by adopting risk mitigation behaviors. One thousand South Korean adults participated in the study via a professional research company in 2022. Statistical analysis was performed using PROCESS Marco. Indirect effects and their significance were estimated using bias-corrected bootstrap (n = 5,000 resampling) confidence intervals (CIs). According to the results, perceived dread of PM air pollution had significant and positive associations with perceived health risks and negative emotion, and perceived risks had a significant and positive association with negative emotion. Moreover, the perceived unknown-ness of PM air pollution had a significant and positive association with perceived uncertainty, which had a significant and negative association with negative emotion. Our mediation models demonstrate that the cognitive and affective routes associated with the two risk dimensions had different effects on behavioral intentions to reduce PM air pollution. These distinct cognitive and affective routes have significant theoretical implications for the effective application of the psychometric paradigm in addressing various risk-related issues. The findings also imply that an appropriate level of negative emotion is crucial to motivate the public’s engagement in risk-reduction behaviors. While employing campaign messages that integrate perceived risk and negative emotional appeals derived from dread can be effective, caution should be taken not to diminish the public’s negative emotions when addressing the risk-related uncertainty in campaigns or interventions. Overall, our findings not only have several practical implications for environmental communication strategies but also make important theoretical contributions to the literature on risk perceptions and the psychometric paradigm.Keywords: Particulate matter (PM)air pollution preventionthe psychometric paradigmdread riskunknown risknegative emotion Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. RS-2023-00217228).
摘要本研究探讨了恐惧和未知风险对个体与颗粒物(PM)空气污染相关的认知、情感反应和决策的影响。特别是,我们研究了恐惧和未知风险如何在形成影响韩国公众通过采取风险缓解行为减少PM空气污染意图的认知和情感路线中发挥不同作用。2022年,1000名韩国成年人通过专业研究公司参与了这项研究。采用PROCESS Marco进行统计分析。使用偏差校正的bootstrap (n = 5,000重采样)置信区间(ci)估计间接效应及其显著性。结果表明,对PM空气污染的感知恐惧与感知健康风险和负面情绪呈显著正相关,感知风险与感知健康风险和负面情绪呈显著正相关。此外,PM空气污染的感知未知与感知不确定性呈显著正相关,感知不确定性与负面情绪呈显著负相关。我们的中介模型表明,与两个风险维度相关的认知和情感路径对减少PM空气污染的行为意愿有不同的影响。这些不同的认知和情感路径对心理测量范式在解决各种风险相关问题中的有效应用具有重要的理论意义。研究结果还表明,适当的负面情绪水平对于激发公众参与降低风险的行为至关重要。虽然采用整合感知风险和源自恐惧的负面情绪诉求的竞选信息可能是有效的,但在处理竞选或干预中与风险相关的不确定性时,应谨慎行事,不要减少公众的负面情绪。总的来说,我们的研究结果不仅对环境沟通策略有一些实际意义,而且对风险感知和心理测量范式的文献做出了重要的理论贡献。关键词:颗粒物(PM)空气污染防治心理测量范式恐惧风险未知风险负性情绪披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突本研究由韩国国家研究基金会(NRF)资助,由韩国政府(MSIT)资助(No. 5)。rs - 2023 - 00217228)。
{"title":"Dread and unknown characteristics of particulate matter pollution: cognitive and affective routes to air pollution prevention","authors":"Soo Jung Hong, Yungwook Kim","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2259399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2259399","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis study investigates the effect of dread and unknown risks on individuals’ cognitive and affective responses and decision-making related to particulate matter (PM) air pollution. In particular, we investigate how dread and unknown risks play different roles in forming the cognitive and affective routes that affect the South Korean public’s intentions to reduce PM air pollution by adopting risk mitigation behaviors. One thousand South Korean adults participated in the study via a professional research company in 2022. Statistical analysis was performed using PROCESS Marco. Indirect effects and their significance were estimated using bias-corrected bootstrap (n = 5,000 resampling) confidence intervals (CIs). According to the results, perceived dread of PM air pollution had significant and positive associations with perceived health risks and negative emotion, and perceived risks had a significant and positive association with negative emotion. Moreover, the perceived unknown-ness of PM air pollution had a significant and positive association with perceived uncertainty, which had a significant and negative association with negative emotion. Our mediation models demonstrate that the cognitive and affective routes associated with the two risk dimensions had different effects on behavioral intentions to reduce PM air pollution. These distinct cognitive and affective routes have significant theoretical implications for the effective application of the psychometric paradigm in addressing various risk-related issues. The findings also imply that an appropriate level of negative emotion is crucial to motivate the public’s engagement in risk-reduction behaviors. While employing campaign messages that integrate perceived risk and negative emotional appeals derived from dread can be effective, caution should be taken not to diminish the public’s negative emotions when addressing the risk-related uncertainty in campaigns or interventions. Overall, our findings not only have several practical implications for environmental communication strategies but also make important theoretical contributions to the literature on risk perceptions and the psychometric paradigm.Keywords: Particulate matter (PM)air pollution preventionthe psychometric paradigmdread riskunknown risknegative emotion Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (No. RS-2023-00217228).","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136016711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Journal of Risk Research
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1