IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i4p767-780.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Some Risk Comparisons More Effective Under Conflict?: A Replication and Extension of Roth et al

Author

Listed:
  • Branden B. Johnson

Abstract

Despite many claims for and against the use of risk comparisons in risk communication, few empirical studies have explored their effect. Only one study, published by Roth et al. in this journal in 1990, has tested the 1988 predictions by Covello et al. as to the public's relative preferences for 14 kinds of risk comparisons as they might be used by a factory manager to explain risks of his ethylene oxide plant. That study found no correlations between the Covello predictions and seven different measures of “acceptability” of Covello's examples of each type of comparison. However, two critics of the Roth study, as well as its own authors, suggested that a scenario involving local risks, a conflict‐ridden situation, and a plant manager unknown to the townspeople might better evoke Covello‐like preferences than the distant, calm, friends‐involving scenario used by Roth. The research reported here replicated the Roth study using the same scenario, risk comparison examples, and evaluation measures, and added a second scenario intended to replicate the conditions suggested by critics. Over 200 New Jersey residents answered the study questionnaire. The replication scenario reproduced Roth's results, and the conflict scenario also evoked no rankings correlated with Covello's predictions. Furthermore, neither agreement nor disagreement with five statements representing “conflict”—respondents' reports that the industrial‐plant scenario made them angry, they lived near industry, they were concerned about industrial risks, people in their home town were angry about industrial pollution, and they worried “frequently” about long‐term effects of pollution—correlated with Covello's predictions. Over half of all ratings ascribed to the comparisons in aggregate were positive, and most detailed comments offered by respondents also were positive, despite many criticisms and suggestions for their improvement. The wide variability in individuals' rankings also undermines the notion of any single ranking of preferred comparisons. These findings have implications for use of risk comparisons, but also reveal the inaccuracy of the field's assumptions about public reaction to industrial risk information, including risk comparison.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:4:p:767-780
    DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00354
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1539-6924.00354?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. 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.
    2. M. Granger Morgan & Lester Lave, 1990. "Ethical Considerations in Risk Communication Practice and Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 355-358, September.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance, 1995. "Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 127-135, April.
    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. Branden B. Johnson, 2008. "Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1515-1530, December.
    2. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    3. Branden B. Johnson & Caron Chess, 2003. "How Reassuring are Risk Comparisons to Pollution Standards and Emission Limits?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 999-1007, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 131-145, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 103-114, February.
    8. 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.

    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. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 103-114, February.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 131-145, February.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Peter Nijkamp & Chiara Maria Travisi & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-112/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    15. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    16. Bret A. Muter & Meredith L. Gore & Shawn J. Riley, 2013. "Social Contagion of Risk Perceptions in Environmental Management Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(8), pages 1489-1499, August.
    17. Aaron Wildavsky, 1991. "Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 15-16, March.
    18. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Lee, Sang Hun & Kang, Hyun Gook, 2016. "Integrated framework for the external cost assessment of nuclear power plant accident considering risk aversion: The Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 111-123.

    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:23:y:2003:i:4:p:767-780. 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.