Pub Date : 2022-12-01DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2151764
R. Lofstedt
{"title":"The elements of choice: why the way we decide matters","authors":"R. Lofstedt","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2151764","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2151764","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1476 - 1477"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46919245","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-11DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2142951
Jingjing Zeng, Meng Yuan, Guihua Huang
Abstract Public risk perception varies by sub-groups but is key in a robust risk management. This study uses the Grid Group Cultural Theory (GGCT) to test how cultures, compared to subjective knowledge level and demographic factors, influence three measures of public risk perception—perceived risk to individuals themselves, the place they live, and China. This study uses an original survey conducted from February 17 to March 14, 2020 during the outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19). This research found that age and household income correlate positively with perceived risk to individuals themselves, and education and household income correlate positively with perceived risk to the place they live, whereas egalitarian and hierarchical cultural indices correlate positively with the perceived risk to China. Further tests of interactive effect of culture and individual characteristics on risk perceptions found that the effect of hierarchy on risk perceptions depends on household income.
{"title":"Individual characteristics or cultures? Public risk perception in the coronavirus pandemic","authors":"Jingjing Zeng, Meng Yuan, Guihua Huang","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2142951","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2142951","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Public risk perception varies by sub-groups but is key in a robust risk management. This study uses the Grid Group Cultural Theory (GGCT) to test how cultures, compared to subjective knowledge level and demographic factors, influence three measures of public risk perception—perceived risk to individuals themselves, the place they live, and China. This study uses an original survey conducted from February 17 to March 14, 2020 during the outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19). This research found that age and household income correlate positively with perceived risk to individuals themselves, and education and household income correlate positively with perceived risk to the place they live, whereas egalitarian and hierarchical cultural indices correlate positively with the perceived risk to China. Further tests of interactive effect of culture and individual characteristics on risk perceptions found that the effect of hierarchy on risk perceptions depends on household income.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1413 - 1443"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45952525","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-11DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2142950
T. Aven, S. Thekdi
Abstract Misinformation is one of the largest challenges for risk assessment and communication. However, the term misinformation in relation to risk has not yet been clearly interpreted by the risk field. Basic definitions of misinformation point to false, incorrect, inaccurate and misleading information. However, when it comes to risk, there is in many cases no reference for what is the truth - the risk magnitude needs to be evaluated on the basis of analysis and judgments. What is judged as misinformation by some, could be seen as adequate information by others. In this paper we reflect on the meaning and scope of the misinformation concept in relation to risk and uncertainty. The main goal is to obtain new knowledge on the topic by relating the discussion to risk science fundamentals, on the understanding, characterization and perception of risk. A structure for a classification of misinformation in relation to risk is proposed. Several measures are also presented to explore how to meet the misinformation challenge in risk contexts.
{"title":"On how to characterize and confront misinformation in a risk context","authors":"T. Aven, S. Thekdi","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2142950","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2142950","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Misinformation is one of the largest challenges for risk assessment and communication. However, the term misinformation in relation to risk has not yet been clearly interpreted by the risk field. Basic definitions of misinformation point to false, incorrect, inaccurate and misleading information. However, when it comes to risk, there is in many cases no reference for what is the truth - the risk magnitude needs to be evaluated on the basis of analysis and judgments. What is judged as misinformation by some, could be seen as adequate information by others. In this paper we reflect on the meaning and scope of the misinformation concept in relation to risk and uncertainty. The main goal is to obtain new knowledge on the topic by relating the discussion to risk science fundamentals, on the understanding, characterization and perception of risk. A structure for a classification of misinformation in relation to risk is proposed. Several measures are also presented to explore how to meet the misinformation challenge in risk contexts.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1272 - 1287"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45540988","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-07DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2142949
Mobeen Ahmad, Umair Majid
Abstract Parents’ trust in information sources on vaccines influences their decision to vaccinate their children. This study explores how trust in information sources can promote or reduce vaccine hesitancy among parents. We conducted a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of 29 vaccine hesitancy studies that focused on information and trust. We found that parents were particularly distrustful of (1) pharmaceutical companies, (2) physicians, (3) the government, and (4) academic research. Distrust partly stemmed from a belief that pharmaceutical companies unduly influenced physicians, the government, and academic research to maximize financial profit at the expense of population health. A non-judgmental, nonpartisan approach—whether with health care providers or family and friends—increased parents’ trust in the information source. Strategies that address parental concerns regarding scientific research and improve communication between parents and providers may increase adherence to vaccination schedules.
{"title":"The value of information: a qualitative analysis of how trust in information sources influences the decision to vaccinate in parents","authors":"Mobeen Ahmad, Umair Majid","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2142949","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2142949","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Parents’ trust in information sources on vaccines influences their decision to vaccinate their children. This study explores how trust in information sources can promote or reduce vaccine hesitancy among parents. We conducted a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of 29 vaccine hesitancy studies that focused on information and trust. We found that parents were particularly distrustful of (1) pharmaceutical companies, (2) physicians, (3) the government, and (4) academic research. Distrust partly stemmed from a belief that pharmaceutical companies unduly influenced physicians, the government, and academic research to maximize financial profit at the expense of population health. A non-judgmental, nonpartisan approach—whether with health care providers or family and friends—increased parents’ trust in the information source. Strategies that address parental concerns regarding scientific research and improve communication between parents and providers may increase adherence to vaccination schedules.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1444 - 1457"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42780000","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-10DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2127850
Melisa Muric, P. Thijssen, C. Turcanu, T. Perko, Y. Tomkiv
Abstract Mitigating risk from exposures to indoor radon is a critical public health problem confronting many countries worldwide. In order to ensure effective radon risk management based on social scientific evidence, it is essential to reduce scientific uncertainty about the state of social methodology. This paper presents a review of methodological (best) practices, and sensitivity to bias, in research on public attitudes and behaviours with regards to radon risks. Using content analysis, we examined characteristics of research design, construct measurement, and data analysis. Having identified certain challenges based on established and new typologies used to assess methodological quality, our research suggests that there is a need for attention to (limitations of) cross-sectional design, representative and appropriate sampling, and a pluralist approach to methods and analysis. Furthermore, we advocate for more comparative research, rigorous measurement and construct validation. Lastly, we argue that research should focus on behavioural outcomes to ensure effective radon risk management. We conclude that for any field to thrive it is crucial that there is methodological reflexivity among researchers. Our recommendations serve as a useful guide for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand and enhance the rigor of social methodology in their field.
{"title":"Foxes caught in the same snare: a methodological review of social radon studies","authors":"Melisa Muric, P. Thijssen, C. Turcanu, T. Perko, Y. Tomkiv","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2127850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2127850","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mitigating risk from exposures to indoor radon is a critical public health problem confronting many countries worldwide. In order to ensure effective radon risk management based on social scientific evidence, it is essential to reduce scientific uncertainty about the state of social methodology. This paper presents a review of methodological (best) practices, and sensitivity to bias, in research on public attitudes and behaviours with regards to radon risks. Using content analysis, we examined characteristics of research design, construct measurement, and data analysis. Having identified certain challenges based on established and new typologies used to assess methodological quality, our research suggests that there is a need for attention to (limitations of) cross-sectional design, representative and appropriate sampling, and a pluralist approach to methods and analysis. Furthermore, we advocate for more comparative research, rigorous measurement and construct validation. Lastly, we argue that research should focus on behavioural outcomes to ensure effective radon risk management. We conclude that for any field to thrive it is crucial that there is methodological reflexivity among researchers. Our recommendations serve as a useful guide for researchers and practitioners seeking to understand and enhance the rigor of social methodology in their field.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"273 - 301"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42723176","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-04DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2128392
Ruben D. Vromans, S. Pauws, L. V. van de Poll-Franse, E. Krahmer
Abstract Despite great promise of using personalized risks of treatment outcomes during shared decision-making, patients often experience difficulty evaluating and using them. We examined the effects of providing comparative information of the average person’s risk when discussing personalized risks on people’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses. Participants (n = 1,807) from a representative sample of the Dutch population received personalized risks of treatment side-effects in three different health scenarios. Participants either received only their own personalized risk statistic, or with comparative data indicating that their risk was below or above average. Furthermore, we examined whether the effects would be influenced by message format (natural frequencies with or without icon arrays) and individual differences (subjective numeracy, health literacy, and graph literacy). Providing comparative information did not influence participants’ risk perceptions, affective evaluations, nor their treatment intention. However, participants who were told that their personalized risks were above average, estimated their own risk as lower than participants who received the same personalized risks that were below average or that were without any comparative data. Message format and individual differences did not influence people’s responses to comparative data. Healthcare professionals can consider providing comparative data for helping people make sense of their personalized risks.
{"title":"Effects of comparative information when communicating personalized risks of treatment outcomes: an experimental study","authors":"Ruben D. Vromans, S. Pauws, L. V. van de Poll-Franse, E. Krahmer","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2128392","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2128392","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite great promise of using personalized risks of treatment outcomes during shared decision-making, patients often experience difficulty evaluating and using them. We examined the effects of providing comparative information of the average person’s risk when discussing personalized risks on people’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses. Participants (n = 1,807) from a representative sample of the Dutch population received personalized risks of treatment side-effects in three different health scenarios. Participants either received only their own personalized risk statistic, or with comparative data indicating that their risk was below or above average. Furthermore, we examined whether the effects would be influenced by message format (natural frequencies with or without icon arrays) and individual differences (subjective numeracy, health literacy, and graph literacy). Providing comparative information did not influence participants’ risk perceptions, affective evaluations, nor their treatment intention. However, participants who were told that their personalized risks were above average, estimated their own risk as lower than participants who received the same personalized risks that were below average or that were without any comparative data. Message format and individual differences did not influence people’s responses to comparative data. Healthcare professionals can consider providing comparative data for helping people make sense of their personalized risks.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"324 - 343"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45515759","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}
Pub Date : 2022-10-03DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2127851
Lois Addo Agyepong, Xin Liang
Abstract Public risk communication (PRC) emerged as an interdisciplinary field in response to the need for integrative approaches to cope with individual resilience and adaptive behavior during emergencies, promoting a government or stakeholder-public dyad approach and providing policy and institutional frameworks. Research on PRC is fast developing into a diverse knowledge domain from a descriptive and theoretical approach to an empirical approach and diverse theories relating to risk and disaster management. However, scholars’ diverse philosophical ideas and multifarious research can inhibit interdisciplinary discourse and hamper practical implications. This integrative review analysis of research in PRC from different interdisciplinary involved bibliometric analysis and content analysis of 819 articles from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The study aims to ascertain the development trends in this field. The bibliometric analysis and systematic review were conducted to identify the knowledge patterns. The findings illustrate the mappings of the trend and emergence of PRC, contribution analysis and address a macroview of risk communication in disaster management, providing an in-depth understanding of scholarly contributions by summarising previous studies, milestones and frontiers. It also identifies several research gaps such as limitations on cross-cultural comparisons addressing risk communication, perceptions and behaviors in making causality claim, geographical diversity in risk communication and so forth. And provides a deeper understanding of the emerging trend in this field of study. The article concludes by proposing and discussing future research for further advancement of this discipline.
公共风险沟通(PRC)作为一个跨学科领域出现，以响应应对突发事件中个人恢复力和适应性行为的综合方法的需求，促进政府或利益相关者-公众二元方法，并提供政策和制度框架。中国的研究正迅速发展成为一个多元化的知识领域，从描述性和理论性的方法到实证方法，以及与风险和灾害管理有关的多种理论。然而，学者们哲学思想的多样性和研究的多样性会抑制跨学科话语，阻碍实践意义。本文对来自不同学科的中国研究进行了综合回顾分析，包括文献计量分析和内容分析，分析了来自Web of Science Core Collection数据库的819篇文章。本研究旨在确定该领域的发展趋势。通过文献计量学分析和系统评价来确定知识模式。研究结果说明了PRC的趋势和出现的映射，贡献分析并解决了灾害管理中风险沟通的宏观观点，通过总结以往的研究，里程碑和前沿，提供了对学术贡献的深入理解。它还指出了几个研究空白，如跨文化比较解决风险沟通的局限性，在作出因果关系索赔的看法和行为，风险沟通的地理多样性等。并对这一研究领域的新兴趋势提供了更深入的了解。文章最后对该学科的进一步发展提出了展望和展望。
{"title":"Mapping the knowledge frontiers of public risk communication in disaster risk management","authors":"Lois Addo Agyepong, Xin Liang","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2127851","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2127851","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Public risk communication (PRC) emerged as an interdisciplinary field in response to the need for integrative approaches to cope with individual resilience and adaptive behavior during emergencies, promoting a government or stakeholder-public dyad approach and providing policy and institutional frameworks. Research on PRC is fast developing into a diverse knowledge domain from a descriptive and theoretical approach to an empirical approach and diverse theories relating to risk and disaster management. However, scholars’ diverse philosophical ideas and multifarious research can inhibit interdisciplinary discourse and hamper practical implications. This integrative review analysis of research in PRC from different interdisciplinary involved bibliometric analysis and content analysis of 819 articles from the Web of Science Core Collection database. The study aims to ascertain the development trends in this field. The bibliometric analysis and systematic review were conducted to identify the knowledge patterns. The findings illustrate the mappings of the trend and emergence of PRC, contribution analysis and address a macroview of risk communication in disaster management, providing an in-depth understanding of scholarly contributions by summarising previous studies, milestones and frontiers. It also identifies several research gaps such as limitations on cross-cultural comparisons addressing risk communication, perceptions and behaviors in making causality claim, geographical diversity in risk communication and so forth. And provides a deeper understanding of the emerging trend in this field of study. The article concludes by proposing and discussing future research for further advancement of this discipline.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"302 - 323"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49061429","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}
Pub Date : 2022-09-30DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2128391
G. Capurro, Ryan Maier, J. Tustin, C. Jardine, S. Driedger
Abstract Risk prevention measures are more likely to be accepted if people trust risk managers and their ability to handle the crisis, which often depends on who communicates with the public. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some Canadian officials became the main spokespersons of pandemic response in their jurisdiction, speaking almost daily to the public. We evaluated how the primary official for each jurisdiction chose to communicate about epidemiological modeling with the public and how they used modeling data to support their pandemic decisions. We conducted textual and visual analyses of press conferences held in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. Then, we asked focus group participants who they trusted the most and the least for information on COVID-19. We identified two main communication styles: compassionate-informative and condescending-evasive. Spokespersons following the former demonstrate a trust-building effort by providing straightforward answers, demonstrating expertise, while showing empathy and risk management competence. Those who followed the latter style predominantly offered superficial and defensive responses, engaging in blame-shifting and politicizing risk. Focus group participants trusted most the spokespersons who follow a compassionate-informative style are considered trustworthy, which could increase compliance with public health measures. However, those who use the condescending-evasive style were seen as less trustworthy. Our results underscore, first, the importance of disassociating political agendas from risk communication and emergency response during public health crises. Second, spokespersons should be trained in risk and crisis communication to engage with reporters and the public positively. Finally, crisis communication should emphasize the scientific evidence behind guidelines, while acknowledging scientific uncertainty.
{"title":"The spokesperson matters: evaluating the crisis communication styles of primary spokespersons when presenting COVID-19 modeling data across three jurisdictions in Canada","authors":"G. Capurro, Ryan Maier, J. Tustin, C. Jardine, S. Driedger","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2128391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2128391","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Risk prevention measures are more likely to be accepted if people trust risk managers and their ability to handle the crisis, which often depends on who communicates with the public. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some Canadian officials became the main spokespersons of pandemic response in their jurisdiction, speaking almost daily to the public. We evaluated how the primary official for each jurisdiction chose to communicate about epidemiological modeling with the public and how they used modeling data to support their pandemic decisions. We conducted textual and visual analyses of press conferences held in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. Then, we asked focus group participants who they trusted the most and the least for information on COVID-19. We identified two main communication styles: compassionate-informative and condescending-evasive. Spokespersons following the former demonstrate a trust-building effort by providing straightforward answers, demonstrating expertise, while showing empathy and risk management competence. Those who followed the latter style predominantly offered superficial and defensive responses, engaging in blame-shifting and politicizing risk. Focus group participants trusted most the spokespersons who follow a compassionate-informative style are considered trustworthy, which could increase compliance with public health measures. However, those who use the condescending-evasive style were seen as less trustworthy. Our results underscore, first, the importance of disassociating political agendas from risk communication and emergency response during public health crises. Second, spokespersons should be trained in risk and crisis communication to engage with reporters and the public positively. Finally, crisis communication should emphasize the scientific evidence behind guidelines, while acknowledging scientific uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1395 - 1412"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48127434","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}
Pub Date : 2022-09-29DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2127848
B. Johnson, A. Finkel
Abstract A novel stated-preferences approach to imputing the value of life to estimate regulatory benefits elicits people’s preferred tradeoffs on behalf of the nation between national regulatory costs and nation-wide regulatory benefits, in contrast to the conventional approach of seeking estimates of the ‘value of a statistical life’ (VSL) by asking subjects how much they would be willing to pay personally for a small reduction in their own mortality risk. Two national-preference survey experiments were pursued here. The first U.S. experiment (n = 396) offered a between-person test of the effect of asking people to evaluate a hypothetical single life prolonged by regulation, before assessing the tolerable cost to the national economy of a hypothetical regulation prolonging 100 lives (LF frame). This unit asking task increased imputed means for the social benefit of a life prolonged (SB1LP*) in national tradeoffs. Cautions to respondents about responses that generated particularly low implicit SB1LP* values did not substantively reduce implausible values. The second U.S. experiment (n = 505) had people respond to both the lives-first (LF) frame, preceded by a unit asking task, and the costs-first (CF) frame (i.e. eliciting ‘reasonable’ numbers of lives prolonged if estimated regulatory cost is $1 billion each year). These frames both mimic the kinds of decisions that regulators face, as the VSL stated preference method does not. Higher LF values in earlier between-person studies were replicated in the unit asking within-person design here. A partial order effect occurred for the second experiment: starting with the CF frame yielded a subsequent LF mean four times higher. Open-ended probing found beliefs that regulatory costs are justified only by prolonging many lives may explain lower CF values. Using both frames can inform both conventional stated preference research (which uses only the LF frame) and regulators.
{"title":"Stated-preference tradeoffs between regulatory costs and benefits: testing unit asking and double framing effects","authors":"B. Johnson, A. Finkel","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2127848","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2127848","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A novel stated-preferences approach to imputing the value of life to estimate regulatory benefits elicits people’s preferred tradeoffs on behalf of the nation between national regulatory costs and nation-wide regulatory benefits, in contrast to the conventional approach of seeking estimates of the ‘value of a statistical life’ (VSL) by asking subjects how much they would be willing to pay personally for a small reduction in their own mortality risk. Two national-preference survey experiments were pursued here. The first U.S. experiment (n = 396) offered a between-person test of the effect of asking people to evaluate a hypothetical single life prolonged by regulation, before assessing the tolerable cost to the national economy of a hypothetical regulation prolonging 100 lives (LF frame). This unit asking task increased imputed means for the social benefit of a life prolonged (SB1LP*) in national tradeoffs. Cautions to respondents about responses that generated particularly low implicit SB1LP* values did not substantively reduce implausible values. The second U.S. experiment (n = 505) had people respond to both the lives-first (LF) frame, preceded by a unit asking task, and the costs-first (CF) frame (i.e. eliciting ‘reasonable’ numbers of lives prolonged if estimated regulatory cost is $1 billion each year). These frames both mimic the kinds of decisions that regulators face, as the VSL stated preference method does not. Higher LF values in earlier between-person studies were replicated in the unit asking within-person design here. A partial order effect occurred for the second experiment: starting with the CF frame yielded a subsequent LF mean four times higher. Open-ended probing found beliefs that regulatory costs are justified only by prolonging many lives may explain lower CF values. Using both frames can inform both conventional stated preference research (which uses only the LF frame) and regulators.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"256 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42998681","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}
Pub Date : 2022-09-08DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2116085
Ferdiana Hoti
Abstract Research related to uncertainty communication remains contradictory, with some authors providing arguments of why it should be communicated, whereas others arguing that we should not do so. Practically, though, the decision on whether or not to openly communicate uncertainties remains on the level of experts of a certain field. That is why, in this article we analyze the psychophysiological reaction of experts when exposed to uncertainty as well as their willingness to participate in decision-making procedures about nuclear decommissioning (a salient issue, in which many uncertainties prevail) and using a sample of N = 134 participants which are employees of nuclear-related institutions in Belgium (divided in 2 groups: familiar and unfamiliar with decommissioning). By using the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) and Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT), we study for the first time (1) whether communicating uncertainty influences participation intention directly and (2) whether this impact is mediated by emotional arousal. The method consists of an experimental design, combining a survey with psychophysiological measurement of emotional arousal. Results show that participation intention is directly influenced by attitudes toward participation, moral norm and time constraints, whereas familiarity with the topic of decommissioning influences participation intention indirectly, through attitude toward participation. Uncertainty communication, our main variable of interest, does not influence participation intention. It does influence, though, emotional arousal (concerning the public acceptance of the remaining radioactivity resulting from decommissioning), but it does not generate negative feelings such as anger or fear. Given that in the literature there is a debate on whether or not uncertainties should be communicated, the findings of this study imply that the concern that uncertainty communication leads to negative feelings should not be used as a reason not to communicate uncertainty anymore. Further implications and limitations are discussed in the article.
{"title":"The impact of uncertainty communication on emotional arousal and participation intention: the psychophysiological effects of uncertainties on experts","authors":"Ferdiana Hoti","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2116085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2116085","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research related to uncertainty communication remains contradictory, with some authors providing arguments of why it should be communicated, whereas others arguing that we should not do so. Practically, though, the decision on whether or not to openly communicate uncertainties remains on the level of experts of a certain field. That is why, in this article we analyze the psychophysiological reaction of experts when exposed to uncertainty as well as their willingness to participate in decision-making procedures about nuclear decommissioning (a salient issue, in which many uncertainties prevail) and using a sample of N = 134 participants which are employees of nuclear-related institutions in Belgium (divided in 2 groups: familiar and unfamiliar with decommissioning). By using the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) and Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT), we study for the first time (1) whether communicating uncertainty influences participation intention directly and (2) whether this impact is mediated by emotional arousal. The method consists of an experimental design, combining a survey with psychophysiological measurement of emotional arousal. Results show that participation intention is directly influenced by attitudes toward participation, moral norm and time constraints, whereas familiarity with the topic of decommissioning influences participation intention indirectly, through attitude toward participation. Uncertainty communication, our main variable of interest, does not influence participation intention. It does influence, though, emotional arousal (concerning the public acceptance of the remaining radioactivity resulting from decommissioning), but it does not generate negative feelings such as anger or fear. Given that in the literature there is a debate on whether or not uncertainties should be communicated, the findings of this study imply that the concern that uncertainty communication leads to negative feelings should not be used as a reason not to communicate uncertainty anymore. Further implications and limitations are discussed in the article.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"26 1","pages":"199 - 218"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42425020","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：