Extending a broadly applicable measure of risk perception: the case for susceptibility

Many empirical studies that inform research, policy and practice surrounding hazards and risk and concerned with how members of the public perceive risk. However, these studies often assess perceived risk using a diverse range of either very general measures or measures of specific subsidiary concepts (for instance, the severity of consequences or the likelihood of occurrence). Previous research by Wilson and others has suggested that perceived risk is best understood and measured as a multidimensional construct that includes beliefs about the likelihood and severity of consequences and the feelings or affect elicited by the hazard. The research presented here extends the work of Wilson et al. by separating the likelihood of consequences into two components that denote the likelihood of the occurrence of a hazard (exposure) and the likelihood of experiencing consequences given exposure (susceptibility). This research replicates findings from Wilson et al. that perceived risk is best conceived of as a multidimensional construct and that affective responses are a primary driver of holistic judgments of both personal and general risk across a variety of hazards. We find that perceptions of susceptibility explain unique variance in holistic judgments of risk, however the importance of the susceptibility concept differs across hazards and across judgments of personal and general risk. These results suggest that measures of susceptibility can meaningfully increase our ability to understand the beliefs that underlie perceptions of the risk posed by a diverse range of hazards. This suggests that developing measures including susceptibility can provide unique opportunities to improve risk communication and risk management policy outcomes.