IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v27y2007i5p1365-1380.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception

Author

Listed:
  • Henry H. Willis
  • Michael L. DeKay

Abstract

Variability in ecological risk perceptions was investigated by surveying members of four stakeholder groups commonly involved in environmental policy debates. Fifty‐six individuals from government, industry, environmental, and general‐public groups completed a risk‐perception survey in which they evaluated 34 environmental hazards on 17 attributes and also evaluated the riskiness and acceptability of each hazard. In addition, participants reported their environmental beliefs and norms using Dunlap et al.'s revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale and modified versions of Schwartz's Awareness of Consequences and Personal Norms Scales. Group membership was predictive of participants' scores on the belief and norm scales. Factor analysis of attribute ratings (averaged across participants) revealed the anticipated three oblique factors: ecological impacts, scientific understanding, and aesthetic impacts. Factor patterns were very similar for the four stakeholder groups. Factors from the aggregate analysis were predictive of individuals' riskiness judgments, but these relationships were moderated by participants' group membership, beliefs, and norms. Compared to members of other groups, members of the general public placed less emphasis on ecological impacts and more emphasis on the other two factors when judging the ecological riskiness of hazards. To our knowledge, these results represent the first formal tests of interactions between hazard characteristics and participant characteristics in determining riskiness judgments, and illustrate how traditional psychometric analyses can be successfully coupled with individual‐difference measures to improve the understanding of risk perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:27:y:2007:i:5:p:1365-1380
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00958.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00958.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00958.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. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    2. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    3. Lennart Sjöberg & Anders af Wåhlberg, 2002. "Risk Perception and New Age Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 751-764, August.
    4. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    5. Christina M. Harding & J. Richard Eiser, 1984. "Characterising the Perceived Risks and Benefits of Some Health Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 131-141, June.
    6. Gerald T. Gardner & Leroy C. Gould, 1989. "Public Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 225-242, June.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    8. Muriel Bouyer & Sophie Bagdassarian & Sveti Chaabanne & Etienne Mullet, 2001. "Personality Correlates of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 457-466, June.
    9. H. Keith Florig & M. Granger Morgan & Kara M. Morgan & Karen E. Jenni & Baruch Fischhoff & Paul S. Fischbeck & Michael L. DeKay, 2001. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (I): Overview and Test Bed Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 913-913, October.
    10. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 95-102, February.
    11. Kara M. Morgan & Michael L. DeKay & Paul S. Fischbeck & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & H. Keith Florig, 2001. "A Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks (II): Evaluation of Validity and Agreement among Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(5), pages 923-923, October.
    12. Timothy L. McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Nigel S. Cavanagh & Paul Slovic, 1997. "Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 341-352, June.
    13. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 363-378, April.
    14. Arabie, Phipps & Maschmeyer, Carman, 1988. "Some current models for the perception and judgment of risk," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 300-329, June.
    15. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    16. Claire Marris & Ian Langford & Thomas Saunderson & Timothy O'Riordan, 1997. "Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 303-312, June.
    17. Timothy McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 575-588, October.
    18. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    19. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Jason C. Kinnell & Ann Fisher, 2000. "Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, 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. Daniela Acquadro Maran & Tatiana Begotti, 2021. "Media Exposure to Climate Change, Anxiety, and Efficacy Beliefs in a Sample of Italian University Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-11, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Lei Huang & Yuting Han & Ying Zhou & Heinz Gutscher & Jun Bi, 2013. "How Do the Chinese Perceive Ecological Risk in Freshwater Lakes?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    5. Lianying Yao & Jinchi Shen & Fuying Zhang & Xinbing Gu & Shuli Jiang, 2021. "Influence of Environmental Values on the Typhoon Risk Perceptions of High School Students: A Case Study in Ningbo, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Shan Gao & Weimin Li & Shuang Ling & Xin Dou & Xiaozhou Liu, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Monika Filipsson & Lill Ljunggren & Tomas Öberg, 2014. "Gender differences in risk management of contaminated land at a Swedish authority," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 353-365, March.
    8. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.

    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. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    4. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    5. Agathe Backer‐Grøndahl & Aslak Fyhri & Pål Ulleberg & Astrid Helene Amundsen, 2009. "Accidents and Unpleasant Incidents: Worry in Transport and Prediction of Travel Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1217-1226, September.
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez, 2008. "Participant-focused analysis: explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 735-753, September.
    7. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & M. Granger Morgan & H. Keith Florig & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2004. "Ecological Risk Ranking: Development and Evaluation of a Method for Improving Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 363-378, April.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    9. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    10. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    11. Nurit Carmi & Iris Alkaher, 2019. "Risk Literacy and Environmental Education: Does Exposure to Academic Environmental Education Make a Difference in How Students Perceive Ecological Risks and Evaluate Their Risk Severity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    13. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    14. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    15. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    16. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing Three Causal Models of Risk Perception, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Energy Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Bonita L. McFarlane & David O. T. Witson, 2008. "Perceptions of Ecological Risk Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Infestations in Banff and Kootenay National Parks of Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 203-212, February.
    18. Charles Vlek, 2013. "How Solid Is the Dutch (and the British) National Risk Assessment? Overview and Decision‐Theoretic Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 948-971, June.
    19. Irving Susel & Trace Lasley & Mark Montezemolo & Joel Piper, 2016. "Augmenting the Deliberative Method for Ranking Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 49-56, January.
    20. Lauren A. Fleishman & Wändi Bruine De Bruin & M. Granger Morgan, 2010. "Informed Public Preferences for Electricity Portfolios with CCS and Other Low‐Carbon Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1399-1410, September.

    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:27:y:2007:i:5:p:1365-1380. 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.