IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v20y2017i6p732-759.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The perceiver’s social role and a risk’s causal structure as determinants of environmental risk evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Gisela Böhm
  • Hans-Rüdiger Pfister

Abstract

We present a dual-process risk perception model that integrates cognitive and emotional as well as consequentialist and deontological components by distinguishing between two modes of evaluative processing: (a) a consequentialist evaluation that focuses on potential consequences and (b) a deontological evaluation that focuses on moral values. Each of these two modes is assumed to trigger specific cognitive evaluations, specific emotions, and specific behavioral tendencies concerning a perceived risk. We conducted an experiment (N = 270) that tested whether the relative dominance of the two evaluative modes would depend on the causal structure of the environmental risk being evaluated and on the social role of the evaluator. Three types of causal structure were varied by providing scenario information: (a) anthropogenic risks that endanger only nature, (b) naturally caused risks with potential harmful consequences for humans, and (c) anthropogenic risks that may harm humans. Participants evaluated each scenario from the perspective of one of three social roles: mayor, expecting parent, and environmental activist. For each scenario, participants specified their focus and evaluated the event’s morality and perceived risk, the intensity of specific emotions, and their preferences for prospective behaviors. Results showed that the consequentialist evaluation was generally stronger than the deontological evaluation and was less affected by the experimental manipulations. The deontological evaluation was substantially affected by the risk’s causal structure. It was stronger for anthropogenic than for natural causation; risks caused by humans were associated with greater perceived moral blameworthiness, more intense morality-based emotions (e.g. outrage), and a stronger tendency to perform agent-related behaviors (e.g. aggression) than naturally occurring risks. The effect of the social role was less pronounced than that of the causal structure. Furthermore, the effect of an evaluative focus on behavior was fully mediated by emotions for deontological evaluations and partially mediated for consequentialist evaluations. The implications for environmental risk perception and communication are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Gisela Böhm & Hans-Rüdiger Pfister, 2017. "The perceiver’s social role and a risk’s causal structure as determinants of environmental risk evaluation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 732-759, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:6:p:732-759
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1118148
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118148
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118148?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuling Fu & Jiaxin Shi & Dan Su & Fumin Deng, 2024. "Face it and shoulder it jointly: from personal experience to mitigation behavior of climate change," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17319-17333, July.
    2. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:6:p:732-759. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.