The affect heuristic and public support for three types of wood smoke mitigation policies

This study applied the affect heuristic model to investigate key psychological factors (affective associations, perceived benefits, and costs of wood heating) contributing to public support for three distinct types of wood smoke mitigation policies: education, incentives, and regulation. The sample comprised 265 residents of Armidale, an Australian regional community adversely affected by winter wood smoke pollution. Our results indicate that residents with stronger positive affective associations with wood heating expressed less support for wood smoke mitigation policies involving regulation. This relationship was fully mediated by expected benefits and costs associated with wood heating. Affective associations were unrelated to public support for policies involving education and incentives, which were broadly endorsed by all segments of the community, and were more strongly associated with rational considerations. Latent profile analysis revealed no evidence to support the proposition that some community members experience internal “heart versus head” conflicts in which their positive affective associations with wood heating would be at odds with their risk judgments about the dangers of wood smoke pollution. Affective associations and cost/benefit judgments were very consistent with each other.

[1]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging , 2008, Appetite.

[2]  G. Giovino,et al.  Effects of Anti-Smoking Advertising on Youth Smoking: A Review , 2003, Journal of health communication.

[3]  A. Leiserowitz.  Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values , 2006 .

[4]  P. Slovic,et al.  A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Affect, Generalization, and the Perception of Risk. , 1983 .

[6]  D. Hine,et al.  Smoking cessation in adults: A dual process perspective , 2009 .

[7]  J. Amos.  State of the environment report , 2015 .

[8]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[9]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Identifying Like-Minded Audiences for Global Warming Public Engagement Campaigns: An Audience Segmentation Analysis and Tool Development , 2011, PloS one.

[10]  P. Slovic.  Smoking : risk, perception & policy , 2001 .

[11]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[12]  H. Akaike.  A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[13]  G. Schwarz.  Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[14]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[15]  P. Slovic,et al.  Risk Perception and Affect , 2006 .

[16]  Deborah A. Small,et al.  Recent EFFECTS OF FEAR AND ANGER ON PERCEIVED RISKS OF TERRORISMA National Field Experiment , 2015 .

[17]  Sally M. Dunlop,et al.  When Your Smoking Is Not Just About You: Antismoking Advertising, Interpersonal Pressure, and Quitting Outcomes , 2014, Journal of health communication.

[18]  Richard S. Tay,et al.  Mass media campaigns reduce the incidence of drinking and driving , 2005 .

[19]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin , 2004 .

[20]  M. Brauer,et al.  Woodsmoke Health Effects: A Review , 2007, Inhalation toxicology.

[21]  Jessica Bagger,et al.  The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) , 2007 .

[22]  S. Epstein.  Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[23]  P. Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, European Journal of Operational Research.

[24]  Geoffrey J. McLachlan,et al.  Finite Mixture Models , 2019, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application.

[25]  J. Shanteau,et al.  Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research: List of Contributors , 2003 .

[26]  R. Zajonc.  Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[27]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  D. Hine,et al.  Comparing the effectiveness of education and technology in reducing wood smoke pollution: A field experiment , 2011 .

[29]  James L Nichols,et al.  Effectiveness of mass media campaigns for reducing drinking and driving and alcohol-involved crashes: a systematic review. , 2004, American journal of preventive medicine.

[30]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. , 2003 .

[31]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power1 , 1996 .

[32]  P. Slovic.  Cigarette Smokers: Rational Actors or Rational Fools? , 2013 .

[33]  X. T. Wang.  Self‐framing of risky choice , 2004 .

[34]  B. Bates,et al.  Climate change and water. , 2008 .

[35]  D. Rubin,et al.  Testing the number of components in a normal mixture , 2001 .

[36]  Donald W. Hine,et al.  Keeping the home fires burning: The affect heuristic and wood smoke pollution , 2007 .