Institute of Food Research Scoping the risk perception universe: Structured analysis and preliminary findings Gillian Hawkes, Julie Houghton and Gene Rowe Institute of Food Research, Norwich, UK

Introduction The issue of how risk is ‘perceived’ is important to the setting of social policies in almost every domain Prediction of human responses to novel potential hazards (or novel manifestations of old hazards) is neither reliable nor complete There is no widely accepted model of risk perception

Aims of the Structured Review Provide a structured review of qualitative studies of risk perception Consider the extent to which research has addressed different facets (the whole domain set) of ‘risk perception’ Discuss methodological deficiencies Summarise the main findings Comment upon the comprehensiveness, validity and usefulness of qualitative research in this area

Method of the Structured Review 1 Relevant papers (374) identified in October 2005 Used a number of criteria to select a smaller sample of the most directly relevant papers:  the papers had to be in English  they had to present the findings of empirical studies  they had to deal with risk perception  the research methods used had to be qualitative in nature (or to include a qualitative – in addition to quantitative – component) Through this process, 28 qualitative studies were identified, including three studies that used both qualitative and quantitative research methods

Method of the Structured Review 2 The selected papers were then interrogated using the following questions:  What hazards were studied?  What research methods were used?  How were the research questions framed (i.e. what questions were asked of subjects)?  What sampling methods were employed?  What results were attained (in particular, what factors were related to perceived risk, and how)? All 28 papers were cross-checked for consistency of interpretation by at least two researchers

Conclusions of Structured Review 1 Considering methodological issues first, our analysis suggests the following:  Most of the hazards studied have been unusual  Most of the studies have relied on one method of data collection, i.e. interviews  Most studies do not record the specific details of, for example, wording/phrasing used in the questions posed  The vast majority of studies have taken place in developed countries  Most studies have focused on the perspectives of samples with an exposure to, or interest in, a particular hazard (as opposed to the more general population)  Most studies have effectively used convenience samples

Conclusions of Structured Review 2 Our analysis suggests there are six main factors commonly found to be related to risk perception:  Negative Affect  Powerlessness  Familiarity  Knowledge  Trust  Personal Characteristics Research has also attempted to understand some of the processes underlying risk perceptions But little research has been done on how perceptions of risk emerge, change and develop over time

Conclusions of Structured Review 3 Number of studies in which the different factors related to risk perception was found

Aims of the Qualitative Study The specific study objectives are as follows:  To “scope” the risk perception universe  To identify the range of dimensions in risk perception  To look at changes in reported knowledge, behaviour and risk-taking over time  To examine impact of phrasing (e.g. risk and worry)  To examine the impact of multiple methods of data collection (e.g. focus groups, interviews, risk diaries)  To explore the impact of demographics (e.g. age, gender, educational level) on risk perception

Method of the Qualitative Study The study is divided into 2 parts: pilot phase (4 focus groups, 12 interviews and 12 diaries, running in parallel) and the main study (12 focus groups, 30 interviews and 30 diaries, running in parallel) The methodologies used in this research project are linked to the objectives of the study: i.e. to scope the risk perception universe and the development of risk perception over time  Focus groups  One-to-one interviews  Diaries

STUDY DESIGN DIARIES Pilot (12) FOCUS GROUPSINTERVIEWS Directive 1 June 2006 Directive 2 Sept 2006 Diaries continue in Phase 2 of study June-Aug 2006 Fieldwork June-Aug 2006 Fieldwork Sept-Oct 2006 Data analysis Sept-Oct 2006 Data analysis Nov-Dec 2006 Writing up Nov-Dec 2006 Writing up Pilot (4) Risk (2)Worry (2)Risk (6) Worry (6) Main (12)Main (30)Main (40) Risk (6)Risk (15) Post-diary Interview (3) Post-diary interview (3) Risk (20)Worry (15)Worry (20)Worry (6) PILOT PHASE 1

Preliminary Findings from Pilot Study- Methodology Recruitment: different recruitment strategies and their effectiveness Many similarities in the risk perception factors identified through the different methods… But some subtle differences in the results from interviews, focus groups and diaries Differences in use of risk and worry between diaries and interviews/focus groups

Preliminary Findings – Results 1 A range of everyday issues that concern people has been identified:  Worry for children  Money  Jobs  Affordability of housing  Old age  Health (cancer, stroke) A range of issues that concern people has been identified:  Global warming  Terrorism (London)  Crime (knives, drugs)  Wars (particularly in Middle East)  Binge-drinking (behaviour of teenagers)

Preliminary Findings – Results 2 A range of triggers has been identified:  The media  Personal experience  Different life stages A range of factors has been suggested:  Fear for children’s future  Knowledge  Media hype  Personal experience  Familiarity  Change over time (different worries due to different life stages or different issues in the media

Conclusions Structured review suggested that a limited range of ‘unusual’ hazards had been studied in a limited way The use of three different qualitative methods can help provide a greater understanding of how people perceive risk, and how this changes over time (at least in the short-term) The results of the pilot phase will inform the research design of the main study