Lecture 4 - Risk Perception in Environmental Psychology Flashcards
(41 cards)
What is a risk?
A Hazard is not the same as a risk
- Hazard = anything that could lead to harm
- Risk = the probability of a hazard happening, and harm associated with the event
Formal definition of Risk
Risk = probability X severity
- Used for risk assessments
How do we really judge whats risky on an everyday basis?
This is the concern of envirionmental psychology
- We dont go about life calculating the risks as we go. We intuitively find ways to subjectively judge risk as we go through life.
Whats the real risk?
- Anything that has the potential to cause harm and we make judgemnets about that
Risk assessment Vs Risk Perception
Risk Assessment = liklihood X severity (more objective and formalised)
Risk Perception = The subjective judgement people make about the characteristics and severity of risks (more subjective, considering thoughts and feelings)
Slovic (2000) Experts, non-experts and risk
Looked at a range of 30 risk issues and asked both experts and non-experts to rank them (1-30)
* Experts vs non-experts came up with quite different judgemnets.
* Non-experts put nuclear power as 1, experts put nuclear power as 20
* Non-experts put swimming at 30, experts put swimming as 10.
Actual risk was measured by number of deaths recorded in the risk issues displayed.
* There was some correspondence between non-expert judgemnet and risk - as the measurable harm from a risk, in terms of death, increases, then peoples perceieved risk does go up.
* HOWEVER, non-experts had a much weaker relationship compared to experts
People are not percieving risks as high risk compared to the experts…
- We therefore want to improve communication and direct educational efforts to stop the biases and misperceptions
- This matters because perceptions (whether accurate or not) tend to influence our behaviour
Things to consider when looking at risk perception and individualised psychological perspectives
- Representativeness Heuristic
- Availability Heuristc
- Framing Effect
- Affect Heuristic
- The Psychometric paradigm
- Individual differences
What is the representativeness Heuristic
- Judging probability on the basis of the similarity of person/event A to group/class B
Tversky and Kahnemann (1974) - The Representativeness Heuristic
People were given two texts about an individual. They are then asked the probability that the individual has a certain occupation. Ps are led to believe a certain answer based on stereotypes. However, statistically the chnaces of the person having that occupation is slim.
* This is an example of the representativeness hueristic. Whilst useful, it can lead to biases in risk perception because we mix up probability with representativeness (ignoring baseline information).
Gerend et al., (2004)- representativness heuristic
Showed the representativeness heuristic in health risk perception. All Ps viewed themselves as the ‘typical woman’ who gets health problems
* Gave Ps a statement
They measured a range of other predictrs
Findings:
* they found that factual data did account for some proportion of variance in percieved suseptibility to health problem BUT if you feel you are the sort of person to get a health problem, your risk perception of this increases
What is the Availability Heuristic?
Estimating the frequency or probability based on how easy it is to think of something. This is when our thinking and judgement is infleunced by how salient/how easy it is to bring to mind a particular idea.
Demski et al., (2016) and the availability heuristic
Looking at the application of the availability heuristic in terms of peoples direct experience of weather events related to CC
- Surveyed people directly effected by flooding
- Surveyed a nationally representative study (no direct experience)
Results:
- When they asked people about the three most prominent issues facing the country, those directly effected by a flood explained that climate chnage was a prominent issue.
availability heuristic is at play - if you have been effected, raises the prominence of the effect
What is the Framing effect?
A decision outcome can be influenced by the background context of teh choice and the way in which the question is worded and framed
Tversky & Kahnemann (1981) and the framing effect
Disease framing experiment:
Ps were given two frames of saving people from a disease
- 200 people will be saved
- 1/3 of 600 people may be saved
People picked the more certain frame, eventhough both frames meant the same outcome. This shows that Ps are risk aversive and avoid risky outcomes.
Spence & Pidgeon (2006) - Framing effectin the context of CC
- They looked at how the same information about CC can lead to difference perceptions depending on whether its framed in a gain/loss frame or a near/distant fram
“by mitigating CC we can prevent further increases in winter floods” - Gain frame
“without mitigating CC, we will see further increases in winter floods” - Loss frame
Results
- gain frame increased peoples percieved severity of CC. They also had stringer attitudes towards CC mitigation. With a distant frame, the effect was opposite.
Graham & Abrahamse (2017) - framing effect
How to frame information around meat consumption and whether this effects peoples risk perception around CC
- They found that giving people information of the meat impacts on CC raised Ps level of concern about GHG emissions, compared to a control
- They measured Ps pre-existing values through the NEP and self-trancendence scores. They found a main effect of values: as peoples environmental values increase, the more concerned they are about the meat impacts on CC
- They also found that matched messaged (self-transcendent Vs self-enhancement messages) was more effective
What is the Affect Heuristic?
Using underlying feelings to form perceptions of risk and benefit
Slovic et al., (2004) and the Affect Heuristic
If a persons feelings towards an activity are favourable, they are moved towards judging the risk as low and the benefits as high
e.g. if you liek skiing, youre probably motivated to judge the risk towards skiing as low eventhough it is quite a risky activity
Leiserowitz et al., (2006) and the Affect Heuristic
Asked Ps how +ve or -ve they felt towrds CC. They also ased for image association “what is the first image that comes to mind when you think of CC”. They got Ps to rate the affect images.
Findings: Affect, in terms of holitic negative affect, was the strongest predictor of risk perception, negative image affect was the second most salient
What is the Psychometric paradigm
This is ‘Cognitive maps’ of risk attitudes and perceptions
Slovic et al., (1980) and the psychometric paradigm
Studied which hazards are seen as the most risky and the reasons underlying this. They had 90 hazards and 18 characteristics.
Findings: they found 2 dimensions to explain how people percieve risk
- DREAD - perceived lack of control, catastrophic potential
- UNKNOWN - unobservable, unfamiliar
This led to a range of research to try and map risks and peoples perceptions of risks on these two dimensions
- nuclear power rated as high on dread and unknwon
- bikes, swimming and trampolines rated as more familiar and less association wth dread.
Fox-Glassman and Weber (2016) and the psychometric approach
40 years later, they argue that they are still finding similar risk space on these dimensions. ‘Dread’ and ‘Unknown’factors still predict percieved level of acceptability of risk
Limitations of the psychometric paradigm
- conclusions are dependent on hazards studied and questions asked
- Atheoretical: what does dread and unknown mean?
- Not always a string predictr, accounts for ~20% of variance (Sjoberg, 2000)
- may be more than two factors or different types of factors
Individual Differences in Risk Perception
Hueristics, Biases and the Psychometric paradigm tend to assume that people are all the same, with the same biases. HOWEVER people differ based on their:
- Knowledge/expertise
- Gender/ethnicity
- Experince
