Examining the Relationship Between Affect and Implicit Associations: Implications for Risk Perception

Abstract

It has been suggested that affect may play an important role in risk perception. Slovic et al. argued that people make use of the "affect heuristic" when assessing risks because it is easier and more efficient to rely on spontaneous affective reactions than to analyze all available information. In the present studies, a single category implicit association test (SC-IAT) to measure associations evoked by different hazards was employed. In the first study, we tested the extent to which the SC-IAT corresponds to the theoretical construct of affect in a risk framework. Specifically, we found that the SC-IAT correlates with other explicit measures that claim to measure affect, as well as with a measure of trust, but not with a measure that captures a different construct (subjective knowledge). In the second study, we addressed the question of whether hazards that vary along the dread dimension of the psychometric paradigm also differ in the affect they evoke. The results of the SC-IAT indicated that a high-dread hazard (nuclear power) elicits negative associations. Moreover, the high-dread hazard evoked more negative associations than a medium-dread hazard (hydroelectric power). In contrast, a nondread hazard (home appliances) led to positive associations. The results of our study highlight the importance of affect in shaping attitudes and opinions toward risks. The results further suggest that implicit measures may provide valuable insight into people's risk perception above and beyond explicit measures.

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

“…These labels derive from researchers' interpretations from the factor loadings, but they seem neither clear nor representative of the individual risk characteristics that belong to each of the factors. To avoid theoretical and empirical ambiguousness when using the labels of 'dread' and 'unknown,' researchers have alternatively proposed that these two factors are two dimensions of risk judgments: the cognitive and the emotional dimensions (Coleman, 1993;Dohle et al, 2010;Dunwoody & Neuwirth, 1991). In the context of the current study, the significance of these two dimensions is that their interplay contributes to shaping the public's perception of risk characteristics (Coleman, 1993;Dunwoody & Neuwirth, 1991).…”

“…Although research on the psychometric paradigm has provided great insight into how the public perceives risks (Dohle, Keller, & Siegrist, 2010;Siegrist, Keller, & Kiers, 2005), it still needs to fill in some theoretical and empirical gaps. First, while several studies have explored risk characteristics for various health issues (Grobe, Douthitt, & Zepeda, 1999;Jenkin, 2006), studies on other risk issues still need to be done, for example emerging infectious diseases.…”

“…Accordingly, this study aims to explore how the media influence risk perceptions by way of their influence on perceived risk characteristics. Researchers have shown that risk characteristics can be grouped into two dimensions, cognitive and emotional (Dohle et al, 2010;Dunwoody & Neuwirth, 1991). But studies are lacking that examine the interplay among types of media, their predictive role in the cognitive and emotional dimensions of risk characteristics, and different levels of risk perceptions.…”

Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Jordan

“…The validity of this approach, according to Dohle et al (2010), has been tested using different sets of risks, different types of participants and sampling, and different countries and cultures. For instance, Fischhoff et al (1978) (Sparks & Shepherd, 1994), to automobile structural defects (Slovic, Mac Gregor, & Kraus 1987) and to nuclear waste (Sjöberg, 2000).…”

“…factor analysis, multiple regressions), the model can produce a cognitive map of risk perception for different technologies and activities. Dohle, Keller, and Siegrist (2010) state that the psychometric paradigm not only examines risks and benefits, but also proposes several characteristics or attributes that can be used to measure people's risk perception, including voluntariness, immediacy, knowledge, controllability, newness, chronic vs. catastrophic and common vs. Dreaded.…”