Abstract:Expanding a limited empirical base on effects of risk comparisons, a pilot experiment explored how varying elements of such comparisons might influence public response. The scenario used was a hypothetical trial of an asbestos-installing firm for putting students and staff at a junior high school at "unreasonable risk," first used by Slovic et al. (1990). Study participants played the role of jurors in the trial, asked to rate the risk, the firm's guilt, whether it should be made liable for future health effects, whether the school should be occupied in its current condition, and whether the asbestos should be removed at a cost of 3 million dollars. Opportunity samples of New Jersey residents (n= 309) received information intended to vary four comparison attributes: number of dimensions of comparison; single versus multiple ways of expressing mortality; a narrative to explain and justify the risk comparison; and the hypothetical role of the participant (juror vs. parent). The dependent variable was a hazard scale constructed from four of the five postcomparison judgments. ANOVA found format variations swamped in their effect by concern about asbestos, with the absence of a narrative and the parental role being the only attributes that increased negative risk reactions. Multiple regression analyses found that multidimensionality, narrative, role, and the presence of any risk comparison at all had significant effects when these (plus death formats) were the only independent variables. However, only multidimensionality (which increased negative reactions) retained significance when asbestos concern, risk beliefs (no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen; any exposure leads to cancer), and demographic variables were added to the analysis. Concern and risk beliefs alone explained 33% of variance in hazard scores; adding demographics and risk comparison variables only raised explained variance to 36% (having children at home and being exposed to multidimensional risk comparisons raised scores; age and income lowered them). The results underline the potentially small effect of risk comparison information on risk views (at least between subjects), but offer some insight into aspects of message design left unexplored in empirical literature to date.

Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research

Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research

Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological erspectives

Do first responders and populations perceive risks similarly? A comparative study of seven countries

Risk perception and the media

A review of psychometric paradigm in environmental risk perception

Surveying the Surveyors to Address Risk Perception and Adaptive Behaviour Cross-study Comparability

Varying risk comparison elements: effects on public reactions

Risk Perception: Experts and the Public

Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature

The role of risk perception for risk management

Cross-cultural Research of the Perceived Risk During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Factors influencing risk perception during Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC): a scoping review

A psychological model of collective risk perceptions

Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield

An integrative framework for mapping the psychological landscape of risk perception

Beyond the Privacy Paradox: Objective versus Relative Risk in Privacy Decision Making

Cultural values, risk characteristics, and risk perceptions of controversial issues: How does cultural theory work?

Risk Perception Comparison among Construction Safety Professionals: Delphi Perspective

Measuring the Subjective Risk Attitude of Decision-Makers: Are there Differences between Groups of Methods and of Persons?

Perceived Risk: Further Considerations for the Marketing Discipline