Determinants of Priority for Risk Reduction: The Role of Worry

One hundred twenty-two members (experts) of the Society for Risk Analysis completed a mailed questionnaire and 150 nonexperts completed a similar questionnaire on the World Wide Web. Questions asked included those about priorities on personal and government action for risk reduction, badness of the risk, number of people affected, worry, and probabilities for self and others. Individual differences in mean desire for action were largely explained in terms of worry. Worry, in turn, was largely affected by probability judgments, which were lower for experts than for nonexperts. Differences across risks in the desire for action, within each subject, were also determined largely by worry and probability. Belief in expert knowledge about the risk increased worry and the priority for risk reduction. A second study involving 91 nonexperts (42 interviewed and 49 on the Web) replicated the main findings for nonexperts from the first study. Interviews also probed the determinants of worry, attitudes toward government versus personal control, and protective behaviors.

[1]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public , 1988 .

[2]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Worry and Risk Perception , 1998, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  N D Weinstein,et al.  Perceived probability, perceived severity, and health-protective behavior. , 2000, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

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

[5]  J. Eiser,et al.  Accidents, Disease, and the Greenhouse Effect: Effects of Response Categories on Estimates of Risk , 1991 .

[6]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield , 1999 .

[7]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The relative influence of probabilities and payoffs upon perceived risk of a gamble , 1967 .

[8]  Eaaron Henderson-King,et al.  Facing Technological Risks: The Importance of Individual Differences☆☆☆★ , 1997 .

[9]  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.

[10]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Judged frequency of lethal events , 1978 .

[11]  Leroy C. Gould,et al.  Public Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Technology1 , 1989 .

[12]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Risk perception and worries after the chernobyl accident , 1990 .

[13]  E U Weber,et al.  Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. , 1993, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  C. Starr Social benefit versus technological risk. , 1969, Science.

[15]  Kristine M. Kuhn,et al.  The Relative Importance of Probabilities, Outcomes, and Vagueness in Hazard Risk Decisions , 1996 .

[16]  Wibecke Brun,et al.  Cognitive components in risk perception: Natural versus manmade risks , 1992 .

[17]  David M. Messick,et al.  Environment, ethics, and behavior : the psychology of environmental valuation and degradation , 1998 .

[18]  J. H. Steiger Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. , 1980 .

[19]  The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[21]  P. Slovic,et al.  Taxonomic Analysis of Perceived Risk: Modeling Individual and Group Perceptions Within Homogeneous Hazard Domains , 1988 .