Do closed survey questions overestimate public perceptions of food risks?

In this paper, we show that the widely accepted methodology for the assessment of risk perception – Likert-type survey questions featuring a set of risks with fixed response alternatives measuring the extent of worry or concern – may overestimate food risk perception. Using a European representative sample survey (n = 26,961) that included an open-ended question asking about problems and risks with food and eating, followed by a battery of closed questions (CQs) assessing food risk perception, we find a similar ranking of perceived food risks across the two methods. Across Europe, the five priority concerns are chronic food-related illness; food origins and quality; acute food-related illness; chemical contamination; and adulteration of food. However, the discrepancies between mentioning a risk in the open-ended question and the expression of worry about risks in the CQ are substantial. Of those who did not mention a specific risk category in the open question, between 60 and 83% (depending on risk category) expressed worry in the CQ. This parallels previous research on the fear of crime, showing that survey responses lead to greatly inflated estimates of the public’s fear of crime than is evidenced by qualitative questioning. It is also consistent with evidence from research on cognitive aspects of survey methodology, suggesting that survey questions may frame the respondent’s thinking about an issue. We conclude with recommendations for the use of branched questions in the quantitative elicitation of public perceptions of risk.     

Perceived health risks and perceptions of expert consensus in modern food society

The article deals with perceptions of food and health risks. Relevant questions are: (1) To what degree do consumers associate specific negative health consequences with food additives and genetically modified food, and do their perceptions differ from the experts’ views? (2) How do consumers perceive experts’ evaluations of health risks connected to food additives and genetically modified food? The results are based on a survey of Norwegian residents in 1999/2000, and of a selected sample of Norwegian experts on food and risks. There were great differences between consumers and experts in their assessments of health risks. To varying extents, consumers associate various health consequences with the risk factors. Consumers seem to perceive experts as more united about the risk factors as health risks than experts do themselves. The findings are discussed with reference to the stigma concept and to a social constructionist perspective. The results contribute to the understanding of consumer perception of risks and their understanding of expert agreement about health risks. They also point to the importance of the interplay between consumers and experts in the public debate and communication process about food and risks.     

Risk Communication and the Social Amplification of Public Sector Risk

Concerns exist within the public sector about the ability of organizations to communicate issues of risk. These concerns include: the nature and magnitude of risks; the vulnerability of those who may bear the consequences associated with an event; and the sense of helplessness felt by victim groups. Apart from the public sector's role as risk generator, regulator and communicator, it also has some responsibility for dealing with the consequences of a major catastrophic event through agencies such as health care and the emergency services. Under certain conditions, it is apparent that concerns over risk issues can escalate beyond a level expected by those charged with the management of that risk. Within this framework, the effective communication of risk and uncertainty is an integral, but often neglected, part of public sector activities. This article explores the process of risk communication and risk amplification and suggests a number of perspectives on policy development.     

Organisational risk perception and transformations in India’s nuclear establishment

The discourse on nuclear power and risk has shifted over the last few decades from security concerns emanating from nuclear weapons to threats to public safety in the event of industrial nuclear accidents. While the main focus of existing scholarship has been on public risk perceptions, comparatively little is known about organisational risk perceptions and the factors that influence organisations’ willingness to accept the incalculable risks of nuclear power. This paper provides insights into how the nuclear establishment in India thinks about risk. Drawing on interviews with the senior management of nuclear organisations, the analysis shows that organisational risk perception is not merely a human construct or the outcome of simple technical cost-benefit rationalities. It is the result of interactions between material and ideational conditions of risk. These conditions are expressed through three core organisational narratives: (1) the growth imperative, (2) technological nationalism and (3) faith in systems and technology. While there is generally a strong consensus on these narratives within and among the nuclear organisations in India, the data also show that organisations are not homogenous entities. Instances of self-critique and reflexivity exist which could open new spaces for change towards a more inclusive organisational discourse on nuclear risk in India.     

Local facility hazard risk controversy and non-local hazard risk perception

Facility siting disputes are as much about the socio-politics in a place as they are about the risks posed by the facility; yet not much is known about how localized controversy about one hazard effects the perception of other, non-local, hazard risks. Our exploratory study tests the idea that a local facility risk controversy (landfill expansion) is tied to an overall sensitivity to risks from a wider range of potentially hazardous facilities. We use logistic regression models of questionnaire survey responses from 205 residents living near two landfills that were recently expanded or proposed to be expanded. Psychometric risk variables, cultural theory of risk variables, and sociodemographic variables are used as controls to see if risk-in-place/context variables related to threat and governance (e.g. fairness and fiduciary equity) predict not only risk from the landfill but also risk from three other potentially hazardous facilities (incinerator, chemical, and nuclear). The risk-in-place/context variables are predictive across all hazards but there is little consistency in the mix of predictors across models. The results suggest that facility controversy is linked to how residents view risks from non-local facility hazards and that this effect varies by place. This points to the need for more research in this area, and is suggestive that risk-hazard controversy may foster localized risk-averse places or wider risk-averse communities.     

战略性新兴产业热的冷思考

9月16日,国家发改委官方网站上公布了《海洋工程装备产业创新发展战略》,这是自去年《国务院关于加快培育和发展战略性新兴产业的决定》(下文称《决定》)印发以来,最早公布的相关产业政策。海洋工程装备是7大战略性新兴产业之一——高端制造业的发展重点。此前《决定》中将节能环保、     

Looking for a safe haven after fancy thrills: a psychometric analysis of risk perception in alpine tourist destinations

Visitors’ risk perceptions have been found to influence the on‐site behaviour of tourists and their intention to return to a destination or to recommend it to others. The present study analyses the perception of tourism risks in the Tyrol, Austria. Building on the psychometric paradigm, participants (N = 207) assessed 15 vacation risks on nine risk characteristics that are derived from psychometric research and completed with characteristics relevant in a tourism context. Findings suggest that additionally to managing the most likely risks, alpine destinations should be prepared to cope with worst case scenarios such as ‘potable water poisoning’, ‘food poisoning’, ‘breaking of an embankment dam’, ‘rock fall on a village’, ‘cable car accident’ and ‘terrorist attack’. Considering these rather low‐probability risks is of decisive importance since such risks are especially prone to evoke public outrage if they – against all expectations – result in damaging events.     

Shifting reactions to risks: a case study

Social science research in the field of risk analysis has emphasised evaluating the magnitude of individuals’ reactions to risks (e.g. strength and salience of concerns, frequency and forcefulness of behaviours that respond to risks). Fewer studies assess the factors that contribute to risk reactions or the types of risks to which reactions are directed (e.g. human health, wildlife health or ecosystem health risks; economic or aesthetic concerns). Theoretical and empirical research on amplification and attenuation of risk (e.g. the Social Amplification of Risk Framework) reveals that the strength of people’s reaction to risks can change markedly over time, as a function of new stimuli. We expand on this foundation to consider here how the types of risks members of the public react to may also shift over the course of their exposure to a hazard, particularly as more information about the hazard becomes available. This case study of risk reactions related to an outbreak of type E botulism in north-western Michigan, USA, demonstrates that the types of risks people react to can change substantially over time. We identify factors that contributed to changes in types of risk reactions, and then consider how these factors potentially distinguish the botulism outbreak from other outbreaks. This case study suggests that, under certain conditions, risk communication can meaningfully alter the types of risks that people react to in response to an environmental hazard. We discuss implications of these findings for risk research, risk communication and environmental conservation.     

Unemployment insurance benefits and income smoothing

Labor unemployment insurance reduces unemployment concerns. We argue that these benefits moderate incentives to smooth earnings to reduce employees’ concerns about unemployment risk. Using exogenous variations in unemployment insurance benefits, we find evidence consistent with this argument. We also find that the link between unemployment insurance benefits and income smoothing is stronger when there is higher unemployment risk and when the firm is likely to employ more low-wage workers, who find unemployment insurance benefits especially useful. Our paper contributes to the literature by showing that public policy decisions such as unemployment insurance have significant, albeit probably unintended, externalities on corporate financial reporting.     

Public perceptions of environmental risk in China

China, as a ‘double risk’ society, is in urgent need for effective environmental risk management systems. Compared with other risks, man-made environmental risks have not been given due weight. Public awareness and perceptions of environmental risks are crucial in all phases of effective risk management. However, little is known about public perceptions of environmental risks in China. To contribute to better understanding of public perception of environmental risk, a questionnaire survey was conducted among university students in Beijing, who represent a group with high level of education and a generally high sensitivity to new information. The results show that even this group has limited knowledge about environmental risks and current risk management systems. Further studies are needed to understand the social construction of environmental risks in China and to seek ways to involve the Chinese public in emergency response and risk management.     

Optimism and the perceptions of new risks

While many risks, especially new ones, are not objectively quantifiable, individuals still form perceptions of risks using incomplete or unclear evidence about the true nature of those risks. In the case of well known risks, such as smoking, individuals perceive risks to be smaller for themselves than others, exhibiting ‘optimism bias’. Although existing evidence supports optimism bias occurring in the case of risks about which individuals are familiar, evidence does not yet exist to suggest that optimism bias applies for new risks. This paper addresses this question by examining the gap in perceptions of risks individuals have for themselves versus society and the environment, conceptualised as social and/or environmental optimism biases. We draw upon the 2002 UEA‐MORI Risk Survey to examine the existence of optimism bias and its effects on risk perceptions and acceptance regarding five science and technology‐related topics: climate change, mobile phones, radioactive waste, GM food and genetic testing. Our findings provide evidence of social and environmental optimism bias following similar patterns and optimism bias appearing greater for those risks bringing sizeable benefit to individuals (e.g. mobile phone radiation) rather than those more acutely affecting society or the environment (e.g. GM food or climate change). Social optimism bias is found to reduce risk perceptions for risks that have received large amounts of media attention, namely, climate change and GM food. On the other hand, optimism bias appears to increase risk perceptions about genetic testing.     

Cosmopolitan risk community in a bowl: a case study of China’s good food movement

Abstract

Ulrich Beck fundamentally transformed our way of thinking about human interdependence through his three core theses on risk, individualisation and cosmopolitanisation. However, two commonly observed deficiencies in Beck’s grand theory were its Eurocentric orientation and a lack of empirical grounding. Based on 5 focus groups and 14 interviews with participants of the emerging Clean Food Movement in China, this paper extends the Beckian discussion outside Europe. Through examining how individuals understand both ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ risks associated with contemporary food consumption, this paper demonstrates that in the face of unpredictable and incalculable harms, risks are not seen as a ‘thing’, but are translated into ‘causal relations’. Subsequently, for Chinese stakeholders, the best way to safeguard food risks is to enact more visible and functioning interdependent relations in the food system. This in turn has given rise to new forms of communities which cut across conventional geographic, socio-economic and political boundaries. The paper deepens a Beckian theorisation in two ways. First, it demonstrates that the ‘enabling’ effect of risk towards a cosmopolitan society is not limited to obvious global crises, such as climate catastrophes and financial meltdown. In fact, the mundane yet intimate concern of putting ‘good’ food in one’s dinner bowl already presses actors to form new social solidarities that are cosmopolitan in nature. Second, it goes beyond Beck’s assertion that the risk society has culminated in a cosmopolitan moment, and explores how a performative cosmopolitan community reshapes the ‘relations of definition’ to mitigate risks on the ground.     

Public perceptions of the dioxin incident in Irish pork

In early December 2008, a global recall of Irish pork was initiated as a result of a subset of the national pork output being contaminated with dioxin. In this study, members of a panel from an Internet‐based longitudinal monitor of public opinion on food and health issues were used to assess public perceptions about the dioxin incident in late December. Although most respondents did not regard food as posing a risk to health, a larger proportion of respondents reported that that there was a ‘very high’ health risk from pork (8.6%) compared to any other food of animal origin. However, when asked to rank the risk posed to human health from a broad range of food and non‐food hazards, PCBs/dioxins were considered to pose less of a risk than high fat food, chemical pollution, or tanning. The majority of respondents (70.5%) considered that the authorities managed the incident in an ‘adequate’ or ‘very efficient’ manner. Respondents who considered that the authorities’ management of the incident was ‘incompetent’ rated the risk associated with eating Irish pork to be higher than those who considered that the authorities’ management was ‘very efficient’. Both the European Food Safety Authority and the Irish food safety authorities pronounced that there was no risk to human health from the level of dioxin in the pork. These communications, coupled with the rapid handling of the incident in an open and transparent way, reassured consumers and maintained their confidence in the food supply.     

Risk as perceived by the German public: pervasive risks and “switching” risks

In 2001, a major project on the perception and evaluation of risks in southern Germany was conducted consisting of survey data as well as of semi‐structured interviews. With reference to the psychometric paradigm, this article analyzes public risk perception, pointing out the perceived risk semantic for nuclear energy, GM‐food, mad cow disease (BSE), crime, global climate change, mobile telephony and its radiation risks. These hazards reveal different patterns of risk perception and different levels of risk acceptability. Secondly, a comparison of qualitative and quantitative findings will be conducted: qualitative analyses indicate that the results of quantitative rating scales on the perception, evaluation and acceptance of technical and environmental hazards might be misleading since the public's focus on risks as elicited by open association stimuli relies much more on ‘everyday‐life’ and ‘pervasive’ risks than for instance on hazards emerging from new technologies. The relevance of technological risks tends to be dependent on the context: If explicitly mentioned in newscasts, in debates or listed in questionnaires memories, fears or other immediate responses become activated, yet they may be forgotten a short time later. We have called this phenomenon “switching effect” and the respective risks “switching risks”. In standardized opinion polls such ‘switching effects’ may evoke firm judgments, even if the importance in the interviewee's mental representation seems marginal.     

Risk communication for catastrophic events: results from focus groups

Focus group methods are adapted here to address two important needs for risk communication: (1) to provide approaches to risk communication in very extreme and catastrophic events, and (2) to obtain risk communication content within the specific catastrophe area of chemical and biological attacks. Focus groups were designed and conducted according to well‐established protocols using hypothetical sarin and smallpox attacks resulting in a chemical or biological release in a confined public space in a transit system. These cases were used to identify content for risk communication information and suggest directions for further research in this area. Common procedures for conducting focus groups were used based on an initial review of such procedures. Four focus groups – two for each type of release – each lasted about two hours. Participants were professionals normally involved in emergencies in health, emergency management, and transportation. They were selected using a snowball sampling technique. Examples of findings for approaches to communicating such risks included how information should be organized over time and how space, locations, and places should be defined for releases to anchor perceptions geographically. Examples of findings for risk communication content are based on how professionals reacted to risk communications used during the two hypothetical releases they were presented with and how they suggested using risk communications. These findings have considerable implications for using and structuring focus groups to derive risk communication procedures and types of content to be used in the context of catastrophes.     

Dispute and morality in the perception of societal risks: extending the psychometric model

The psychometric paradigm has identified two classic dimensions, dread and unknown risk, structuring the perception of risks. We propose that disputed risk and morality are two additional dimensions that are relevant to describe the cognitive representation of societal risks. Disputed risk captures two aspects of a societal risk: first, that consensus about scientific evidence is low, and second, that the public debate about the risk issue is highly controversial. Morality refers to judgments of reprehensibility, capturing the fact that societal risks frequently involve violations of moral principles. In a survey study employing two samples, a household sample (N = 418) and a student sample (N = 88), participants evaluated 24 societal risks on 23 psychometric scales intended to assess the four constructs dread, unknown risk, disputed risk, and morality. Principal component analyses yielded three dimensions: a common dimension of dread and morality, a disputed risk dimension, and unknown risk. We also assessed judgments of overall riskiness for all risks. Morality and dread both proved to be strong and distinctive predictors of perceived overall riskiness in regression analyses; disputed risk and unknown risk, in contrast, do not play a substantial role as predictors. These findings were replicated across both samples. We conclude that disputed risk constitutes a novel and unique psychometric dimension; morality, on the other hand, coincides with dread in the cognitive representation of societal risks, while still showing a distinct and strong effect in the prediction of risk judgments.     

What role for social scientists in risk expertise?

When it comes to risks – health and environmental risks, like those linked to the use of nanotechnologies, pesticides, etc. – three main groups of actors are easily identified, brought together through boundary organisations such as environmental and sanitary risk agencies: the natural and technical scientists, who provide their expertise to assess risks (especially toxicologists, epidemiologists and microbiologists); the policy makers, who take decisions regarding risk management and risk regulation; the lay public, who are more and more involved in participatory frameworks. Sometimes three other groups of actors are added: the ‘economists’ who can for instance conduct cost–benefit assessments or multi-criteria analyses (especially ecological economists, public economists, political economists and social economists); the ‘philosophers’/‘ethicists’ who can use ethics to highlight moral choices and responsibilities in face of risks; and the ‘jurists’/‘legal experts’ who can justify authorisation or interdiction according to law. Inversely, there is a group of actors which is not clearly identified, that of social scientists, even though a considerable quantity of social science knowledge on risk has been produced. Why is there such a discrepancy? This article, based on a critical review of the literature, aims to make sense of the fuzziness surrounding the involvement of social scientists when it comes to risk expertise. The article shows that one reason for this puzzling situation is to be found in the gap between what social scientists often want to do when they are called in as risk experts and what natural scientists and public policy makers actually expect from them.     

Preparing for the worst: public perceptions of risk management innovations

Scholars often call for research on the public’s involvement in crisis and risk mitigation. Yet, before the public can be persuaded to become involved in new mitigation initiatives, risk managers must first understand how members of the public perceive such initiatives. Grounded in diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory, this study presents insights from 70 adult residents of a US urban metro area through focus group research. Findings yield insights about public perceptions of risk management innovations including that ‘greater good’ incentives can motivate interest in innovations (more so than financial incentives), thereby extending DOI theory. In addition, participants suggested mechanisms for facilitating government transparency to encourage program participation, along with additional insights about involving the public in government-sponsored risk management innovations.     

'New security' risks and public educating: the significance of recent evolutionary brain science

The response to 'new security' risks requires significant changes in public behaviour, and the legitimization of unpopular government policies. Public Educating (public information/public education) is one means to achieve this. The need is reflected in initiatives such as environmental education, development education, health promotion, and the Public Understanding of Science. Current strategies are often based on commercial advertising, but mass communications theory does not directly encompass influencing perception , which is necessary to create awareness of the new 'invisible' risks. Recent evolutionary brain science is providing fresh and relevant insights into our species perception deficits, which can inform a more effective approach to Public Educating. This paper first places risk within the context of the post-Cold War 'global security' agenda. It proposes a theoretical framework - 'brain lag' - to explain perceptual deficits in relation to this agenda, which draws on theories of information, adaptation and denial, and an understanding of the human senses including time-scale-latency. Fundamental areas of evolutionary perception are proposed which are relevant across the agenda: fear and disgust, number perception, and cheating. This leads to a core concept for Public Educating about new security risks, 'enhanced difference', and a set of hypotheses that can be applied to text or image.