Priorities for Preventive Action: Explaining Americans’ Divergent Reactions to 100 Public Risks

Abstract

Why do Americans' priorities for combating risks like terrorism, climate change, and violent crime often seem so uncorrelated with the dangers that those risks objectively present? Many scholars believe the answer to this question is that heuristics, biases, and ignorance cause voters to misperceive risk magnitudes. By contrast, this article argues that Americans' risk priorities primarily reflect judgments about the extent to which some victims deserve more protection than others and the degree to which it is appropriate for government to intervene in different areas of social life. The article supports this argument with evidence drawn from a survey with 3,000 respondents, using pairwise comparisons to elicit novel measures of how respondents perceive nine dimensions of 100 life-threatening risks. Respondents were well informed about these risks' relative magnitudes-the correlation between perceived and actual mortality was .82-but those perceptions explained relatively little variation in policy preferences relative to judgments about the status of victims and the appropriate role of government. These findings hold regardless of political party, education, and other demographics. The article thus argues that the key to understanding Americans' divergent reactions to risk lies more with their values than with their grasp of factual information.

Ready When the Big One Comes? Natural Disasters and Mass Support for Preparedness Investment

“…Having been affected by recent weather shifts changes beliefs about global warming (Egan & Mullin, 2012 ) and increases support for both climate action as well as political candidates who propose progressive environmental policies (Rudman et al., 2013 ). These findings are consistent with previous work on the impact of environmental events on subjective risk assessments (Weisaeth & Eitinger, 1993 ) and the strong correlation between perceived and actual mortality risks for a large set of life-threatening events (Friedman, 2019 ). Specifically, personal exposure to natural disasters could set in motion a learning process in which individuals revise their preferences over which allocation of public resources they deem most beneficial.…”

Fact-Checking Climate Change: An Analysis of Claims and Verification Practices by Fact-Checkers in Four Countries

“…Misinformation about climate change does not only come from climate skeptics. Climate scientists, supporters of climate change, and even climate computer models have been found to either miscommunicate or exaggerate the effects of it as well, hence contributing to the diffusion of false information on the issue (The Associated Press, 2021; Friedman, 2019; Fiorina et al, 2008). A U.N. report warned that scientists may need to be careful in modeling the future of climate change effects as some computer models predicted a future that will be too hot too fast, which may undermine the credibility of climate science (Goodwin & Dahlstrom, 2014; Hausfather et al, 2022).…”

Judicial Philosophy and the Public’s Support for Courts

“…In May of 2021, we obtained a sample of 2170 high quality respondents from Qualtrics, a widely respected survey firm (Bonilla and Tiller 2020; Friedman 2019; Kane et al 2021). 6 The sample matched the American adult population on a variety of demographic characteristics and achieved balance in terms of partisanship.…”