Varying risk comparison elements: Effects on public reactions
Varying risk comparison elements: Effects on public reactions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00415.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Johnson, BB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Johnson, BB
扩大了风险比较效果的有限经验基础，进行了一项试点实验，探讨这种比较的不同因素如何影响公众的反应。所使用的情景是一个假设性的试验，一家石棉安装公司将初中的学生和工作人员置于“不合理的风险”之中，Slovic等人（1990年）首先使用了这种情况。研究参与者在审判中扮演陪审员的角色，被要求评估风险，公司的罪行，是否应该对未来的健康影响负责，学校是否应该在目前的条件下被占用，以及石棉是否应该以300万美元的成本被移除。机会样本的新泽西居民（n = 309）收到的信息，旨在改变四个比较属性：数量的比较维度;单一与多种方式表达死亡率;一个叙述来解释和证明风险比较;和假设的角色的参与者（陪审员与家长）。因变量是一个危险量表，由五个比较后判断中的四个构成。方差分析发现，格式的变化淹没了他们的影响，对石棉的关注，与缺乏一个叙述和父母的角色是唯一的属性，增加了负面的风险反应。多元回归分析发现，当这些（加上死亡形式）是唯一的自变量时，多维度、叙述、角色和任何风险比较的存在都有显著的影响。然而，只有多维度（增加了负面反应）在石棉问题，风险信念（没有安全的致癌物质暴露水平;任何暴露都会导致癌症）和人口统计学变量被添加到分析中时才保持显著性。关注和风险信念单独解释了33%的风险评分方差;增加人口统计学和风险比较变量仅将解释的方差提高到36%（家中有孩子并暴露于多维风险比较提高了评分;年龄和收入降低了评分）。研究结果强调了风险比较信息对风险观点（至少在受试者之间）的潜在影响很小，但提供了一些深入了解迄今为止实证文献中未探索的信息设计方面。
Expanding a limited empirical base on effects of risk comparisons, a pilot experiment explored how varying elements of such comparisons might influence public response. The scenario used was a hypothetical trial of an asbestos-installing firm for putting students and staff at a junior high school at "unreasonable risk," first used by Slovic et al. (1990). Study participants played the role of jurors in the trial, asked to rate the risk, the firm's guilt, whether it should be made liable for future health effects, whether the school should be occupied in its current condition, and whether the asbestos should be removed at a cost of $3 million. Opportunity samples of New Jersey residents (n = 309) received information intended to vary four comparison attributes: number of dimensions of comparison; single versus multiple ways of expressing mortality; a narrative to explain and justify the risk comparison; and the hypothetical role of the participant (juror vs. parent). The dependent variable was a hazard scale constructed from four of the five postcomparison judgments. ANOVA found format variations swamped in their effect by concern about asbestos, with the absence of a narrative and the parental role being the only attributes that increased negative risk reactions. Multiple regression analyses found that multidimensionality, narrative, role, and the presence of any risk comparison at all had significant effects when these (plus death formats) were the only independent variables. However, only multidimensionality (which increased negative reactions) retained significance when asbestos concern, risk beliefs (no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen; any exposure leads to cancer), and demographic variables were added to the analysis. Concern and risk beliefs alone explained 33% of variance in hazard scores; adding demographics and risk comparison variables only raised explained variance to 36% (having children at home and being exposed to multidimensional risk comparisons raised scores; age and income lowered them). The results underline the potentially small effect of risk comparison information on risk views (at least between subjects), but offer some insight into aspects of message design left unexplored in empirical literature to date.