Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus

Abstract

Most psychometric studies of risk perception have used data that have been averaged over participants prior to analysis. Such aggregation obscures variation among participants and inflates the magnitude of relationships between psychometric dimensions and dependent variables such as overall riskiness. However, most studies that have not averaged data over participants have also shifted the focus of analysis from differences among hazards to differences among participants. Hence, it is unclear whether observed reductions in the explanatory power of psychometric dimensions result from the change in the level of analysis or from the change in the focus of analysis. Following Willis et al.'s (2005) analysis of ecological risk perceptions, we unconfound these two variables in a study of risk perceptions in Santiago, Chile, although we use more traditional hazards, attributes, and statistical procedures. Results confirm that psychometric dimensions explain less variation in judgments of riskiness and acceptability at the disaggregate level than at the aggregate level. However, they also explain less variation when the focus of analysis is differences among participants rather than differences among hazards. These two effects appear to be similar in magnitude. A simple hybrid analysis economically represents variation among participants' judgments of hazards' riskiness by relating those judgments to a common set of psychometric dimensions from a traditional aggregate-level analysis.

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

“…Facility-specific dread showed up in all four pooled sample hazard facility models (though it was not significant in the Elgin incinerator and chemical facility models). This is consistent with other studies which show the predictive power of dread (Bronfman et al 2007;Sjoberg 2000;Slovic 2000). Some have suggested though that the power of 'dread' may be due primarily to a common semantic with 'threat' which is the core of the dependant variable in this study and elsewhere (Sjoberg 2000;Willis et al 2005).…”

“…Further, Figure 2 shows that Elgin residents are generally more concerned about all four facilities. This reinforces the dangers of aggregation and general population studies in risk perception research (Bronfman et al 2007;Sjoberg 2000;Trumbo 1996). Full comparison is beyond the scope here, but possible explanations are: (1) community composition -many of the residents near the Elgin site are First Nations, who may be more sensitive to hazards and justice issues generally and (2) timingwhile Ottawa has yet to complete their expansion environmental assessment, the assessment had very recently been approved for the Elgin Green Lane site at the time of our study.…”

Cognitive and emotional dimensions of perceived risk characteristics, genre-specific media effects, and risk perceptions: the case of H1N1 influenza in South Korea

“…Labeled as shin-jong flu (New Flu), its coverage in the media may have heightened public uncertainty and dread because it seems to have broken out year after year, albeit under different forms and labels (e.g., H5N1, H5N3, H9N2). Such circumstances may explain why, in our study, immediacy was grouped with the emotional dimension of risk characteristics, while previous studies grouped it with the cognitive dimension (e.g., Bronfman, Cifuentes, deKay, & Willis, 2007;Slovic, 1987).…”

How Do the Chinese Perceive Ecological Risk in Freshwater Lakes?

“…Furthermore, risk perception was influenced by individual-difference predictor variables, including demographics [10], [11], [20]–[23], expertise [7], [8], [24], the potential ecological impact [25]; social background (i.e. culture) [26], customs [27], economic development status [14], and environmental conditions [28], [29], all of which could also affect public actions and perceptions [30]–[32].…”