Regular Article
MESSAGE FORMAT AND AUDIENCE VALUES: INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF UNCERTAINTY INFORMATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES ON PERCEIVED RISK

https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0145Get rights and content

Abstract

The communication of risk assessment uncertainty to the public and to policy makers is a matter of increasing concern and debate. Although both past research and psychological theory predict that presenting information about the uncertainty associated with a risk estimate will increase perceived risk, recent work (Johnson & Slovic, 1995) suggests that it may in fact have a negligible impact on the average response to hazard risks. The present study argues that, when hazards are evaluated in the context of risk-benefits tradeoffs, uncertainty information interacts with individual value differences in its effects on perceived risk. One hundred and seventy-seven subjects evaluated five hypothetical environmental risk scenarios, with probabilistic risk information presented in one of four ways: (1) a single best estimate, (2) a best estimate with a verbal qualification of its associated uncertainty, (3) a numerical range centered on that estimate, and (4) a numerical range with the values explained as the conclusions of two different sources with opposing biases. Average level of perceived risk did not differ across these experimental groups, but type of uncertainty information and the individual's level of environmental concern had an interactive effect.

References (37)

  • A. Amendola

    Uncertainty in systems reliabilities management: Insights gained from European benchmark exercises

    Nuclear Engineering and Design

    (1986)
  • D.A. Schkade et al.

    How people respond to contingent valuation questions—A verbal protocol analysis of willingness-to-pay for an environmental regulation

    Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

    (1994)
  • A.S. Alhakami et al.

    A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit

    Risk Analysis

    (1994)
  • M.H. Birnbaum et al.

    Bayesian inference: Combining base rates with opinions of sources who vary in credibility

    Journal of Personality & Social Psychology

    (1983)
  • W. Brun

    Risk perception: Main issues, approaches and findings

  • C. Camerer et al.

    Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity

    Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

    (1992)
  • Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 1997, Risk assessment and risk management in regulatory decision...
  • R.E. Dunlap et al.

    The new environmental paradigm: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results

    Journal of Environmental Education

    (1978)
  • S. Dunwoody et al.

    Coming to terms with the impact of communication on scientific and technological risk judgements

  • H.J. Einhorn et al.

    Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference

    Psychological Review

    (1985)
  • A. Finkel

    Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management

    (1990)
  • B. Fischhoff

    Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process

    Risk Analysis

    (1995)
  • C.R. Fox et al.

    Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance

    Quarterly Journal of Economics

    (1995)
  • W.R. Freudenberg

    Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions

    Social Forces

    (1993)
  • D Frisch et al.

    Ambiguity and rationality

    Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

    (1988)
  • M.M. Granger et al.

    Subjective judgements by climate experts

    Environmental Science & Technology

    (1995)
  • R. Gregory et al.

    Perceived risk, dread, and benefits

    Risk Analysis

    (1993)
  • F.H. Habicht

    Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors

    (1992)
  • Cited by (48)

    • Mediating effect of environmental orientation on pro-environmental purchase intentions in a low-involvement product situation

      2017, Australasian Marketing Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      Polonsky (2011) discusses the difficulty of going green as being partly attributed to a lack of long-term thinking within society, and inter-relates myopia and environmental problems. This point may also be associated to Kuhn's (2000) argument that many negative effects of environmental threats are not salient to consumers, possibly because they are not immediately noticeable, resulting in individuals failing to think about environmental factors long-term (Greitemeyer, 2013; Polonsky et al., 2014; Urien and Kilbourne, 2011). When it comes to the understanding of sustainability, a number of studies have demonstrated that being future-oriented is a predictor of pro-environmental behavior (Carmi, 2013; Milfont and Gouveia, 2006).

    • Social media mediated interaction with peers, experts and anonymous authors: Conversation partner and message framing effects on risk perception and sense-making of organic food

      2017, Food Quality and Preference
      Citation Excerpt :

      Providing information on both the benefits and the risks of eating organic food, without emphasising one or the other, might induce a feeling of uncertainty, as no straightforward conclusion can be drawn. Uncertainty may induce individuals to use their initial attitude as a heuristic to evaluate the information they receive (Kuhn, 2000). When the conversation partner is uncertain about how to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of eating organic food, initial attitudes may thus be an important determinant of risk perception and sense-making.

    • A review of uncertainty research in impact assessment

      2015, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      For instance, several studies across various disciplines in the environmental sciences have examined how best to communicate scientific information (e.g., Janssen et al., 2005; Patt and Dessai, 2005), the forms in which it should be displayed (e.g., Ibrekk and Morgan, 1987), the implications of adopting numerical versus verbal representations (e.g., Stephens et al., 2012), and how different forms of information communication are perceived by the public (e.g., Ekwurzel et al., 2011; Pidgeon, 2012). Kuhn (2000), for example, argue that disclosure and retrieval of uncertainty information should concentrate on how the targeted audience perceives uncertainty since, notwithstanding its importance, such information may not always be appreciated or of interest to them (see Wardekker et al., 2008). Much of the research on uncertainty communication is based on the notion that increasing knowledge about uncertainties can increase a decision maker's awareness and allow them to better orient their decision-making approach to identify more preferred, or less risky choices (see Geneletti et al., 2003).

    • Uncertainty and decision making: Volcanic crisis scenarios

      2014, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, Kuhn [54] cautions that if we do communicate a range of uncertainty estimates, decision makers may focus more on either side of a range of uncertainty estimates around an “anchor probability”, resulting in the risk posed being attenuated or amplified (p. 43). This selective interpretation of uncertainty can be due to an alignment of pre-existing attitudes and beliefs (Lord et al. as cited in [54, p. 43]), and can be used as a reason to discount the seriousness of any threat or justify a particular political agenda. In addition, other studies have suggested that communicating uncertainty can decrease people׳s trust in, and credibility of, the provider [43,42,99,68,110], and that it can allow people to justify inaction or their own agenda, or to perceive the risk as being higher or lower than it is, depending on their attitudes.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text