IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v14y1994i6p949-958.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Risks of “Putting the Numbers in Context”: A Cautionary Tale

Author

Listed:
  • William R. Freudenburg
  • Julie A. Rursch

Abstract

Despite the warnings of risk communication specialists, members of the technical community often urge that technological risks should be “put in context” by comparisons against risks that are more familiar. Little quantitative evidence is available on the actual behavioral consequences of such risk comparison efforts. In the present study, subjects were presented with two types of information about a hazardous waste incinerator–a simplified statistical summary and a comparison of incinerator risks against the risks of smoking. Statistical information led to a modest increase in the reported willingness to vote in favor of the incinerator in a community referendum, but the comparison against cigarettes led to a slight decrease in support; the difference between the two messages is statistically significant (p

Suggested Citation

  • William R. Freudenburg & Julie A. Rursch, 1994. "The Risks of “Putting the Numbers in Context”: A Cautionary Tale," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 949-958, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:14:y:1994:i:6:p:949-958
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00064.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00064.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00064.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jin Tan Liu & V. Kerry Smith, 2022. "Risk Communication and Attitude Change: Taiwan's National Debate Over Nuclear Power," Chapters, in: The Economics of Environmental Risk, chapter 9, pages 118-136, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Emilie Roth & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Lester Lave & Ann Bostrom, 1990. "What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 375-387, September.
    3. William R. Freudenburg & Rodney K. Baxter, 1985. "Nuclear Reactions: Public Attitudes and Policies Toward Nuclear Power," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 5(1), pages 96-110, August.
    4. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(5), pages 497-502, October.
    5. Paul Slovic & Nancy Kraus & Vincent T. Covello, 1990. "What Should We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 389-392, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nancy A. Connelly & Barbara A. Knuth, 1998. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Examining Target Audience Perceptions About Four Presentation Formats for Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 649-659, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    2. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    3. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 131-145, February.
    4. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 103-114, February.
    5. Theresa A. K. Knoblauch & Michael Stauffacher & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2018. "Communicating Low‐Probability High‐Consequence Risk, Uncertainty and Expert Confidence: Induced Seismicity of Deep Geothermal Energy and Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 694-709, April.
    6. George O. Rogers, 1997. "The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 745-757, December.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Communicating Air Quality Information: Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Formats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 91-103, February.
    8. Branden B. Johnson, 2002. "Stability and Inoculation of Risk Comparisons' Effects Under Conflict: Replicating and Extending the “Asbestos Jury” Study by Slovic et al," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 777-788, August.
    9. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.
    10. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Are Some Risk Comparisons More Effective Under Conflict?: A Replication and Extension of Roth et al," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 767-780, August.
    11. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    12. Branden B. Johnson, 1993. "“The Mental Model” Meets “The Planning Process”: Wrestling with Risk Communication Research and Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-8, February.
    13. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    14. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    15. Michael Yu & Tomás Lejarraga & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2166-2181, December.
    16. Ann Bostrom & Cynthia J. Atman & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 789-798, October.
    17. Peter Nijkamp & Chiara Maria Travisi & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-112/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Aaron Wildavsky, 1991. "Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 15-16, March.
    19. Jan M. Gutteling & MargÔt Kuttschreuter, 2002. "The role of expertise in risk communication: laypeople's and expert's perception of the millennium bug risk in The Netherlands," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 35-47, January.
    20. Michael Siegrist & Pascale Orlow & Carmen Keller, 2008. "The Effect of Graphical and Numerical Presentation of Hypothetical Prenatal Diagnosis Results on Risk Perception," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 567-574, July.

    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:wly:riskan:v:14:y:1994:i:6:p:949-958. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.