Determinants of Risk Perceptions of a Hazardous Waste Site

Bord, Richard J.; O’Connor, Robert E.

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00693.x

Cited by 119 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the work in this area has focused upon firstly, the impact of uncertainty upon perceptions of risk or the source of the risk communication, and secondly upon factors that affect public responses to uncertainty. The communication of risk can itself cause increased concern [19,20], however it is not necessarily the case that communication of uncertainty produces greater concern than "certain risk" estimates do [21,22,23]. It is unclear in this literature however to what extent people distinguish between risk and uncertainty.…”

Section: Public Responses To Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 71%

Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding public perceptions of health information is of increasing importance in the light of the growing imperatives upon regulators to communicate information about risk and uncertainty.Communicating the possible health risks from mobile telecommunications is a domain that allows consideration of both public perceptions of uncertain public health information and public responses to precautionary advice. This research reports the results of a nationally representative survey in the UK (n = 1742) that explored public responses to a leaflet issued by the Department of Health (DoH) in 2000 providing information about the possible health risks of mobile phones. The aims of the study were twofold: a) to assess awareness of the leaflet and the extent to which participants could identify the precautionary advice that the leaflet contained as coming from the Government; and b) to examine publics" responses to the current Government precautionary advice about mobile phone health risks; was this associated with increased concern or reassurance? The results indicate the importance of policy makers developing a clear understanding of the possible effects of communicating precautionary advice.

show abstract

Section: Public Responses To Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 71%

Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior studies have shown greater trust in industry and government (Bord and O'Connor, 1992;Pijawka and Mushkatel, 1992;Sjöberg, 1999b) (Biel and Dahlstrand, 1995;Flynn et al, 1992;Hallman and Wandersman, 1995) is linked to lower perception of risk and/or favourable attitudes towards nuclear applications.…”

Section: Other Factors In Risk Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support, opposition, emotion and contentious issue risk perception

Bourassa

Doraty

Berdahl

et al. 2016

International Journal of Public Sector Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – Research on emotion in the context of risk perception has historically focused on negative emotions, and has emphasized the effect of these negative emotions on the perception of risk amongst those who oppose (rather than support) contentious issues. Drawing on theory, the purpose of this paper is to hypothesize that both positive and negative emotions are correlated with risk perceptions regarding contentious public issues and that this occurs amongst supporters and opponents alike. Design/methodology/approach – The paper explores the relationship between emotions and perceived risk through consideration of the highly contentious case of nuclear energy in Saskatchewan, Canada. The analysis uses data from a representative telephone survey of 1,355 residents. Findings – The results suggest that positive emotions, like negative emotions, are related to nuclear energy risk perceptions. Emotions are related to risk perception amongst both supporters and opponents. Research limitations/implications – The data set’s limited number of emotion measures and single public issue focus, combined with the survey’s cross-sectional design, make this research exploratory in nature. Future research should incorporate multiple positive emotions, explore opposition, and support across a range of contentious public issues, and consider experimental models to assess causal relationships. Practical implications – The paper offers insights into how public sector managers must be cognizant of the emotional underpinnings of risk perceptions amongst both supporters and opponents of contentious public issues. Originality/value – This paper builds on and expands previous work by considering both positive and negative emotions and both supporters and opponents of contentious issues.

show abstract

“…Approaches to estimating perceived risk include the use of surveys (Bord and O' Connor 1992;Gegax, Gerking, and Schulze 1991;Lindell and Earle 1983;McClelland, Schulze, and Hurd 1990;Rogers 1997;Slovic et al 1991); the use of surveys within Bayesian learning framework (Smith and Johnson 1988;Viscusi 1985;Viscusi 1991;Viscusi and O' Connor 1984); and the use of measures of concern (Loewenstein and Mather 1990). Gayer, Hamilton, and Viscusi (2000) start with an objective cancer risk measure and use a Bayesian learning framework to update risk.…”

Section: Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%