风险认知和种族

C. Palmer, Lisa K. Carlstrom, J. Woodward
{"title":"风险认知和种族","authors":"C. Palmer, Lisa K. Carlstrom, J. Woodward","doi":"10.1017/S1357530901000412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Simplified Conjoint Expected Risk (SCER: Holtgrave and Weber, 1993) model-based approach was used to explore differences in the perceived risk of a variety of financial and health activities among Caucasians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Taiwanese-Americans. The SCER model postulates that the perceived risk of an activity is a function of five dimensions: the subjective probability of harm, benefit, and status quo, and the subjective expected harm and benefit. This model offers a framework in which to apply qualitative and quantitative approaches in order to identify and to assess the generality of ethnic group differences in the relative weight attached to probability and expected outcome information, the subjective valuation of probabilities and expected outcomes, and the perceived harms and benefits. Results demonstrated that the primary and most generalised locus of ethnic group perceived risk differences is the relative importance attached to probability and expected outcome information. As predicted, these differences tended to mirror ethnic group differences in orientation toward uncertainty. By decomposing differences in terms of the elements of the SCER model, these results demonstrate that risk communication and policy efforts in ethnically diverse countries should recognise the role of the relative weight attached to the likelihood and magnitude of harm and benefit in risk perception. Clarifying the bases for differences in perceived risk among ethnic groups may provide a better understanding of conflict over environmental or other issues and aid in the development of effective strategies for communicating about risk and negotiating solutions to important policy problems.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk perception and ethnicity\",\"authors\":\"C. Palmer, Lisa K. Carlstrom, J. Woodward\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1357530901000412\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A Simplified Conjoint Expected Risk (SCER: Holtgrave and Weber, 1993) model-based approach was used to explore differences in the perceived risk of a variety of financial and health activities among Caucasians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Taiwanese-Americans. The SCER model postulates that the perceived risk of an activity is a function of five dimensions: the subjective probability of harm, benefit, and status quo, and the subjective expected harm and benefit. This model offers a framework in which to apply qualitative and quantitative approaches in order to identify and to assess the generality of ethnic group differences in the relative weight attached to probability and expected outcome information, the subjective valuation of probabilities and expected outcomes, and the perceived harms and benefits. Results demonstrated that the primary and most generalised locus of ethnic group perceived risk differences is the relative importance attached to probability and expected outcome information. As predicted, these differences tended to mirror ethnic group differences in orientation toward uncertainty. By decomposing differences in terms of the elements of the SCER model, these results demonstrate that risk communication and policy efforts in ethnically diverse countries should recognise the role of the relative weight attached to the likelihood and magnitude of harm and benefit in risk perception. Clarifying the bases for differences in perceived risk among ethnic groups may provide a better understanding of conflict over environmental or other issues and aid in the development of effective strategies for communicating about risk and negotiating solutions to important policy problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":212131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Decision and Policy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Decision and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530901000412\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Decision and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530901000412","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

本研究以简化联合预期风险(SCER: Holtgrave and Weber, 1993)模型为基础,探讨白种人、非裔美国人、墨西哥裔美国人和台湾裔美国人对各种金融和健康活动感知风险的差异。SCER模型假设一项活动的感知风险是五个维度的函数:主观的伤害概率、收益和现状,以及主观的预期伤害和收益。该模型提供了一个应用定性和定量方法的框架,以便识别和评估种族群体差异的普遍性,包括对概率和预期结果信息的相对权重,对概率和预期结果的主观评估,以及感知到的危害和利益。结果表明,种族群体感知风险差异的主要和最普遍的位点是对概率和预期结果信息的相对重要性。正如预测的那样,这些差异往往反映了种族群体对不确定性取向的差异。通过分解SCER模型要素方面的差异,这些结果表明,在种族多样化的国家,风险沟通和政策努力应该认识到风险感知中危害和利益的可能性和程度的相对权重的作用。澄清各族裔群体在感知风险方面存在差异的基础,可能有助于更好地了解在环境或其他问题上的冲突,并有助于制定有效战略,就风险问题进行沟通,并就重要政策问题的解决办法进行谈判。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Risk perception and ethnicity
A Simplified Conjoint Expected Risk (SCER: Holtgrave and Weber, 1993) model-based approach was used to explore differences in the perceived risk of a variety of financial and health activities among Caucasians, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Taiwanese-Americans. The SCER model postulates that the perceived risk of an activity is a function of five dimensions: the subjective probability of harm, benefit, and status quo, and the subjective expected harm and benefit. This model offers a framework in which to apply qualitative and quantitative approaches in order to identify and to assess the generality of ethnic group differences in the relative weight attached to probability and expected outcome information, the subjective valuation of probabilities and expected outcomes, and the perceived harms and benefits. Results demonstrated that the primary and most generalised locus of ethnic group perceived risk differences is the relative importance attached to probability and expected outcome information. As predicted, these differences tended to mirror ethnic group differences in orientation toward uncertainty. By decomposing differences in terms of the elements of the SCER model, these results demonstrate that risk communication and policy efforts in ethnically diverse countries should recognise the role of the relative weight attached to the likelihood and magnitude of harm and benefit in risk perception. Clarifying the bases for differences in perceived risk among ethnic groups may provide a better understanding of conflict over environmental or other issues and aid in the development of effective strategies for communicating about risk and negotiating solutions to important policy problems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Multi-attribute decision making and public perceptions of risk in relation to large scale environmental projects Is safety culture in differing organizations the same thing? a comparison of safety culture measures in three organizations Risk events and learning from error: when are assessments of the risk of unemployment revised? On not wanting to know and not wanting to inform others: choices regarding predictive genetic testing Making decisions for incident management in nuclear power plants using probabilistic safety assessment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
×
提示
确定
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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