The influence of information delivery on risk ranking by lay people

An experiment was conducted in a real environment to test how information delivery affects risk ranking. Another aim was to propose the best format for delivering information. Different people received different types of information about risks in a risk ranking exercise: Group 1 received a descriptive paragraph about the hazards (Format 1); Group 2 added a table with specific information on risk attributes (Format 2); Group 3 added information on the steps taken locally to mitigate the risks (Format 3), and Group 4 received a data table without identifying the hazard (Format 4). Agreement among subjects' rankings within a group and from group to group was used to measure the potential impact of information delivery. Average pair‐wise Spearman correlation was used to compare the level of agreement within each group. Results showed greater consensus in the group using Format 4 than in Formats 1, 2, and 3, with the only significant difference between Format 4 and each one of the others. The results show tha...

[1]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Communicating Low Risk Magnitudes: Incidence Rates Expressed as Frequency Versus Rates Expressed as Probability , 1997 .

[2]  Edward Lichtenstein,et al.  Assessing Perceptions of Synergistic Health Risk: A Comparison of Two Scales , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment , 1993 .

[4]  M. J. Quadrel,et al.  Risk perception and communication , 2008 .

[5]  N. Bronfman,et al.  Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[7]  Ellen Hall,et al.  Inner City Health in America , 1979 .

[8]  I Savage,et al.  Demographic influences on risk perceptions. , 1993, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Andrea H. McMakin,et al.  Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks , 1994 .

[10]  M. Granger Morgan,et al.  Graphical Communication of Uncertain Quantities to Nontechnical People , 1987 .

[11]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .

[12]  Jeanne X. Kasperson,et al.  Perilous Progress: Managing The Hazards Of Technology , 1985 .

[13]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  What Number is “Fifty‐Fifty”?: Redistributing Excessive 50% Responses in Elicited Probabilities , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Rating the Risks , 1979 .

[15]  Ray G. Taylor,et al.  Age and gender differences in perceived accident likelihood and driver competences. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  M. G. Morgan,et al.  What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons , 1990 .

[17]  B Fischhoff,et al.  A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk , 2005 .

[19]  Robert M Kaplan,et al.  Patient information processing and the decision to accept treatment. , 1985, Journal of social behavior and personality.

[20]  F. Fagnani,et al.  Risk Perception and Social Acceptability of Technologies: The French Case , 1989 .

[21]  James Flynn,et al.  Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository , 1993 .

[22]  E. Vaughan,et al.  The Significance of Socioeconomic and Ethnic Diversity for the Risk Communication Process , 1995 .

[23]  P. Gustafson.  Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives , 1998, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[24]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[25]  P. Slovic,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks , 1992, Toxicologic pathology.

[26]  Brenda Nordenstam,et al.  The Perception of Environmental Risks among Ethnically Diverse Groups , 1991 .

[27]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Health risk perception in Canada II: Worldviews, attitudes and opinions , 1995 .

[28]  Branden B Johnson,et al.  Gender and Race in Beliefs about Outdoor Air Pollution , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[29]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Health-risk perception in Canada , 1993 .

[30]  S E Hrudey,et al.  Socioeconomic Determinants of Health‐ and Food Safety‐Related Risk Perceptions , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[32]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[33]  Paul S. Fischbeck,et al.  Improving Regulation : Cases in Environment, Health, and Safety , 2001 .

[34]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC , 1992 .

[35]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Evaluating risk communication: narrative vs. technical presentations of information about radon. , 1992, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[36]  R. C. Schwing,et al.  Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? , 1980 .