Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries

Goszczyńska, Maryla; Tyszka, Tadeusz; Slovlc, Paul

doi:10.1002/bdm.3960040305

Cited by 115 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Typically, a few components or factors account for 70-90% of the variation in these dependent variables. Studies using this approach have been conducted in Australia (Eiser et al, 1990;Rohrmann, 1994), Brazil (Nyland, 1993), Chile (Bronfman and Cifuentes, 2003), China (Jianguang, 1994), France (Bastide et al, 1989;Karpowicz-Lazerg and Mullet, 1993;Poumadere et al, 1995;Wiegman et al, 1995), Hong Kong (Keown, 1989), Hungary (Englander et al, 1986), Japan (Hinman et al, 1993;Kleinhesselink and Rosa, 1991), Norway (Teigen et al, 1988), Poland (Goszczynska et al, 1991), Sweden (Nyland, 1993;Sjöberg, 1999Sjöberg, , 2000, the United Kingdom (Eiser et al, 1990), and the United States (Fischhoff et al, 1997;Hinman et al, 1993;Slovic, 1987), often with similar results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bronfman

Cifuentes

DeKay

et al. 2007

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bronfman

Cifuentes

DeKay

et al. 2007

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides accepting risk as personal and thereby avoiding the challenge of defining it, we also do not address certain other well known problems associated with risk assessment, viz. (a) different meanings of risk across cultures (e.g., Goszczynska et al, 1991;Weber and Hsee, 1998), (b) systematic misestimates of likelihood when it is considered synonymous with risk (e.g., DeJoy, 1992;Slovic, 1993;Zeckhauser and Viscusi, 1990) and (c) different subjective interpretations of likelihood terms across people (e.g., Budescu et al, 2003;Smits and Hoorens, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The distortion of information to support an emerging evaluation of risk

Russo

Yong

2011

Journal of Econometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Obviously, college students, especially a group with over half self declaring as science majors, are not representative of the entire population. However, the literature has shown that findings from student and convenience surveys are typically replicated by sample population surveys (Englander et al 1986, Goszczynska 1991, Kleinhesselink and Rosa 1991, Siegrist and Cvetkovich 2000, Siegrist 2000, Teigen et al 1988. Arguably, the respondents should be more able to accurately answer questions about ecological resources, exposure, and risk than the adult population of the United States as a whole.…”

Section: Study Populationsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Factors influencing acquisition of ecological and exposure information about hazards and risks from contaminated sites

Burger

Greenberg

Gochfeld

et al. 2007

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerable research indicates that a wide range of socio-economic factors influence attitudes and perceptions about environmental hazards and risks, and that social trust in those who manage a hazard is strongly correlated to judgements about risks and benefits. We suggest that there are three steps that lead to environmental risk perceptions: acquisition of information, interpretation and synthesis of different pieces of information, and understanding of that information in light of previous knowledge, perceptions, or attitudes. In this study we presented 211 college students in the sciences and non-sciences with ecological and exposure information using text, tables and maps to examine the factors that affect information acquisition and interpretation concerning ecological issues at a fictitious hazardous waste site. Students were allowed about an hour to read the materials and answer questions. The percent of students answering each question correctly varied from 4 to 82%, indicating that some questions were extremely difficult to answer. We attributed these differences to variations in the number of places information was presented (in text, tables, maps, or a combination) and the complexity of the information (how many pieces of information were required to answer the question correctly). The correlation between the number of students answering each question correctly and these combined measures (frequency, complexity) was -0.72. Thus, although there were differences in accuracy concerning ecological information as presented in this study, the major differences were accounted for by how the information was presented, and how much information was required. This suggests that risk communicators should carefully determine which ecological information is critical for the target audience, and ensure that it is presented several times (in different forms). That a lower percentage of people correctly answered questions that required synthesizing several pieces of information suggests that this complexity should be reduced where possible, or that the pieces of information should be tied clearly to the conclusion. Self-declaration of effort and perceptions of safety of the site did not markedly influence the relationship between accuracy, difficulty of finding information, and complexity of information. Other possible confounding variables (i.e., science vs non-science major) only accounted for about 27% of the variation in student's overall score on ecological questions; age, ethnicity, and gender did not enter as significant variables. We cannot manage environmental hazards with appropriate stakeholder input unless we understand how to present environmental information to achieve a full understanding. Protection of human health and the environment requires that people understand ecological and exposure information, particularly on buffer lands.

show abstract

Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries

Cited by 115 publications

References 7 publications

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

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

The distortion of information to support an emerging evaluation of risk

Factors influencing acquisition of ecological and exposure information about hazards and risks from contaminated sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About