Risk Perception in Toxicology—Part I: Moving beyond Scientific Instincts to Understand Risk Perception

Abstract

Information from the study of toxins by hard sciences like toxicology is interpreted based on affective, emotional, and instinctive psychologic cues discovered by social science. Understanding and respecting these soft science insights can help toxicologists better communicate their work and findings and have greater influence on the choices of individuals and policy makers.

“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals

“…The use of affect is both automatic and quick and can prove more efficient than analytical and cognitive evaluations (Finucane et al., ; Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, ). However, relying on affect for decisionmaking does not necessarily produce decisions that are in the individual's best interests, and it might, in some cases, even lead to biased and dangerous behavior (Ropeik, ; Slovic et al., ; Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, ). For instance, some consumers could be influenced by irrelevant individual or environmental stimuli (Slovic et al., ; Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, ) that could fuel misconceptions and over‐ or underestimations of a product's risks.…”

“…When people do not possess sufficient technical knowledge for judging a certain risk, their trust in risk regulation bodies often guides their judgments and decisions instead (Earle & Cvetkovich, ; Siegrist & Cvetkovich, ; Siegrist, Connor, & Keller, ). If they trust these regulators, they are less concerned and less prone to overreact to chemicals because they believe the risk regulators do their work appropriately and provide accurate assessments (Ropeik, ; Siegrist & Cvetkovich, ). Nevertheless, if consumers become familiarized with the dose–response principle, their knowledge regarding chemicals might be enhanced, and limit their negative perceptions and overreactions to chemicals (Dickson‐Spillmann et al., ).…”

Evaluating Determinants of Environmental Risk Perception for Risk Management in Contaminated Sites

“…However, Fischoff [26] stated that no definition of risk is ultimately correct, since no suitable one applies to all problems. Recently, traditional risk assessment based on science alone has increasingly come into question [17] because the risks to society are exhibiting far more diverse aspects beyond the scope of scientifically estimated risks. Ropeik [17] argued that although scientific risk assessment is thoroughly conducted by using reliable methods, results will conflict with the inherent way human beings perceive risk, because how normal people live is not well understood by experts and policymakers.…”

“…The causes determining laypeople’s risk judgments and perceptions need to be thoroughly studied in order to create effective risk communication between governments and the public [14,16,17,18]. Comprehending laypeople’s fundamental understanding of risk-related judgment can help risk communicators achieve the following: effectively establish communication efforts, properly select pieces of information and their formats [8], and foster information sharing among relevant parties.…”

On the origin of worries about modern health hazards: Experimental evidence for a conjoint influence of media reports and personality traits

“…uncontrollability and fatal consequences, e.g., nuclear reactor accidents) (Slovic, 1987). Particularly the issue of novelty and unfamiliarity represents a defining feature of MHW and partly helps to explain the risk perception gap (Ropeik, 2011), i.e., the discrepancy between objective facts (suggesting a rather low threat potential compared to known causes of death such as smoking or physical inactivity) and subjective fears. In this regard it appears relevant that mass media coverage appears to be biased in favoring new emerging potential health hazards compared to known health risks.…”