· Dread risk is defined at its high end (right-hand side) by perceived lack of control, dread, catastrophic potential, fatal consequences, and the inequitable distribution of risks and benefits.

· Unknown Risk is defined at its high end (top of graph) by hazards judged to be unobservable, unknown, new, and delayed in their manifestation of harm.

· Hazards that are "voluntary" (eg: bicycles, skiing) tend to be judged as "controllable". Hazards whose adverse effects are delayed (microwave ovens, DNA technology)

tend to be seen as posing risks that are not well known.

· According to research, the higher a hazard’s score on the dread risk scale, the more people want to see its current risks reduced, and the more they want to see strict regulation employed to achieve the desired reduction in risk. In contrast, expert’s perceptions of risk are not closely related to any of the various risk characteristics or factors described from these characteristics. Experts appear to see riskiness as synonymous with expected annual mortality.

· Some hazards may be rated higher on the dread risk scale due to costs associated with the event. Costs of an unfortunate mishap may rapidly expand by what is known as the ripple effect. Indirect costs of an incident may extend past industry boundaries, affecting companies, industries, and agencies whose business is minimally related to the initial event.

 

· For example, the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in 1979 imposed great costs on our society although not a single person died, few people were injured, and not much property damage was done. First, the utility that owned and operated the plant was hit with financial costs. Second, it imposed enormous costs on the nuclear industry and on society through stricter regulation (resulting in increased construction and operation costs). Third, it reduced operation of other reactors around the world. Fourth, it caused a great deal of public opposition to nuclear power, and a reliance on more expensive energy sources.

· Accidents like this one have profound effects on a lot of people and organizations. These accidents are called "high-signal accidents" because they have the potential to produce large ripples.

 

· Some hazards may be rated higher on the dread risk scale due to costs associated with the event. Costs of an unfortunate mishap may rapidly expand by what is known as the ripple effect. Indirect costs of an incident may extend past industry boundaries, affecting companies, industries, and agencies whose business is minimally related to the initial event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. The Importance of Trust

A. It is important to look at and compare risks that we casually except and risks which we fear and avoid

    1. medical technologies vs. industrial technologies

a. ex* physicians = high degree of trust (low risk); industry officials - low degree of trust (high risk)

 ex* physicians - low degree of trust (high risk) industrial officials high degree of trust (low risk)

 

II. Creation and Destruction of Trust

A. Trust is fragile. It is created slowly and can be destroyed in an instant.

B. Since trust Is easier to destroy than to create, creating trust for individuals such as industry officials i.e. power plants, government officials etc. is a difficult task.

i. negative (trust-destroying) events are more visible than positive (trust-building) events

a. ex* How many positive events are represented by the safe operation of a nuclear power plant in one day?

ii. Negative (trust-destroying) events carry more weight in our minds

    1. ex* "There have been no reported safety problem reported at the plant in the past year" or "One potential safety problem was Found to have been covered up by plant officials"

 

iii. Sources of negative (trust-destroying) news tend to be perceived as more credible than sources of positive (trust-building) news

a. ex* people’s confidence in predicting human health from animal studies

iv. Distrust reinforces distrust

a. people usually avoid the ones they distrust and therefore never have a chance to see if they are well meaning or trustworthy

b. initial distrust/trust "colors" our interpretation of events, thus reinforcing our prior beliefs

III. "The System" Destroys Trust

A. The media tends to communicate negative (trust-destroying) events

    1. Experts vs. experts - contradicting each other

 

Risk Perception and Race

1. The percentage of high-risk responses is greater among people of color on every item.

2. Non-White respondents were particularly more concerned about bacteria in food, genetically engineered bacteria, pesticides in food, and pollution from chemical and nuclear wastes.

3. In response to one statement in the survey, "There are serious environmental health problems where I live," 45% of white respondents agreed or strongly agreed. The rate of agreement for Non-Whites was 20.5% higher The difference between whites and blacks was even greater, 25.8%. Hispanics agreed 4.4% more frequently than blacks and 30.2% more frequently than whites.

Why?

1. The practice of siting hazardous and noxious waste facilities in areas with significant or majority nonwhite population. (environmental racism). Racial and ethnic factors are combined with economic vulnerabilities and political weakness as characteristics of communities that may be targeted for facilities that are unacceptable in other locations.

2. Hazards in the workplace, for example, pesticide exposures to agricultural workers.

3. Exposure to lead and the incidence of lead poisoning have been called one of the nation's most serious health threats to children, one that is much more common for children of color than for white children.

4. Federal programs to clean up waste sites may favor white communities in preference to addressing problems In communities with large nonwhite populations.

Risk perception among white males

1. white males were always less likely to rate a hazard as posing a "high risk".

2. white males accounted for more than 2/3’s of the respondents in the lower quartile of the hazard score distribution.

Why?

The group of white males with the lower risk-perception scores were better educated (42.7% college or postgraduate degree, vs 26.3% in other group), had higher household incomes (32.1% above $50,000, vs 21.0%), and were politically more conservative (48.0% conservative, vs 33.2% in other group).

Discussion:

Important results in these data are:

Perceptions of risk were higher for women on every hazard studied.

why? "...They are more vulnerable, because they benefit less from many of its technologies and institutions, and because

they have less power and control."(47)

The percentage of high-risk responses is greater among people of color on every item.

why? Environmental Racism

white males stand out from everyone else in their perceptions and attitudes regarding risk.

why? "Perhaps white males see less risk In the world because they create, manage, control, and benefit from so much of it."

(p. 47)



Gender, Race, and Perceptions of Environmental Health Risks

Flynn, Slovic & Mertz, 1994

Focus on:
	-characteristics of risk perceiver
	-role of gender and race in perception of risk


Participants:
approx. 1500 English speaking people in US
-86% white
-14% nonwhite

 Survey asked:
-ratings of environmental risks
-attitudes and opinion questions of health issues
-other demographic info
-rated the public health risks of 25 hazards
on scale of 1-4 from "almost no health risk" to "high health risk"

1			2			3			4
(almost no risk)   (slight risk)          (moderate risk) 	   (high risk)

"Hazard Index" 
- average ratings of 25 items assessed 

- also shown are mean scores for subgroups based on race and gender 


 Results:

- men rated all hazards as less risky than women

- nonwhites rated hazards as more risky than whites

- white males rated risks lower than other 3 groups


 Risk Perception and Gender

- Women had more high-risk responses
- Perceptions of higher for women on every hazard studied

Why the difference between males and females?

Some hypotheses:

Biological & Social differences
- women are more concerned w/ health and safety,
socialized to nurture
- women characterized as physically more vulnerable,
sensitized to other risks

Related to nuclear & chemical hazards
- fewer female engineers and scientists
lack of knowledge and familiarity, distrust of male- dominated technologies
 Problems/ Limitations 
of "women lack of science knowledge"

- what about nontechnological hazards?
- Barke et. al. (1994) found female scientists still rated risks as higher than male scientists
- Gutteling & Weigman (1993) found women were not less familiar w/ technology
  

Other possible sociopolitical reasons for the gender difference in risk perception

Gutteling & Weigman (1993)
- men independent, don't show weaknesses, minimize fear and anxiety
- women dependent, less inhibition of feelings, more worries 


Flynn et al. (1994)
- men more power and control, benefit more from society, see less risk
- women less power and control, benefit less, see more dangerous world