CHAPTER 2 SCARE OF THE WEEK: RISK PERCEPTION AND BEHAVIOR

Even if we know with some certainty that a hazard exists - that there is some risk associated with this hazard – and that this risk is in some measure quantifiable – individual and societal response on that risk will be extremely internalized

A number of factors influence how we perceive and react to relative risks associated with different situations. For example:

1. People with social, political, or economic interests tend to downplay certain risks and emphasize others that suit their own agendas. [But then, so do we all]

2. Most people have difficulty understanding and believing probabilities. [we tend to view things in patterns and connections] 3. Our personal experiences are often misleading [If “I” haven’t experienced it, it must be rare and unlikely]

4. We have an exaggerated view of our abilities to control our fate. [“won’t happen to us, we’re…”] 5. News media give us a biased perspective on certain kinds of hazard 6. We tend to have an irrational fear or distrust of certain technologies or activities

Q.: How would you perceive threat when it is presented as “everywhere”? Schellhorn on personal security against terrorism: “Identify potential terrorist targets in your local area to avoid during terrorist alerts.” What does he want us to avoid???

1. Public assembly areas 2. Public buildings 3. Financial institutions and areas of high economic impact 4. Mass transportation 5. Telecommunications facilities and public utilities 6. Historical or symbolic places 7. Military bases and installations 8. Places of worship

??? Oddly enough, according to Schellhorn, it’s okay to drink the water as the often- discussed scenario of poisoning the water supply of a metropolitan area does not appear feasible [too much chemical agent required to overcome normal filtration and purification]

“Is anything Safe?” - The excessive side of public fear of technological hazard where it isn’t warranted - Why the irrational level of fear in some situations and not others? - Why does the public frequently view comparable risk threats in such dichotomous ways? - Why are some hazards perceived as risks by some segments of the population and not others?

How can we make more informed judgments? What do we the general public perceive to be the greatest threats facing the U.S. … very serious? [this is pre-9/11]

Hazardous waste sites (highest) Industrial water pollution Worker exposure to toxic chemicals Oil spills Ozone-layer depletion Radioactivity from nuclear power plants

Why the disparity of opinion between the profession and the public? Several answers possible, presentation is a significant one - Media speaks language of populous - Media “spoons-feeds”; “sound bites” - Media provides “analysts” where news might be too complicated

- scientists talk in dry terms and concepts; in hard to understand statistics; in convoluted explanations - Interesting that public trusts Science as a Demi-God, but doesn’t understand a word that it says

An aside: On WMD Threat “Most of the information available today on chemical and biological incidents targets emergency personnel, government agencies, military organizations and medical authorities.”

Aside, cont “Little information is available to help the typical American citizen deal with the physical and psychological impacts of incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD).” Schellhorn, Chemical / Biological: Personal Emergency Response Guide, 2001.

The public generally perceives involuntary risks as greater hazards than voluntary risks. Additionally, the public perceives new technologies as greater risks than more familiar technologies

Summary, this point The public generally sees a technology or product as more risky when it : 1. is relatively new or complex 2. is perceived as being mostly involuntary rather than voluntary 3. is viewed as unnecessary rather than beneficial or necessary

Summary, this point 4. involves a large well-publicized death toll from a single event 5. use involves unfair distribution of risk 6. has a poor public image 7. does not involve a sincere search for and evaluation of alternatives

Two Final Factors in Hazard/Risk Perception Issue Time: knowledge of the probability of a hazardous event is also an important element in determining/assessing perception of hazard ex: short vs. long time interval; sporadic vs. cyclic

Two Final Factors in Hazard/Risk Perception Issue, cont When – aspect that we can examine easily, but which hasn’t been investigated extensively.. the “when” of tech hazard perception … i.e.: when does it become a perceived hazard on the mind of the populous

Two Final Factors in Hazard/Risk Perception Issue, cont When, cont: (1) Research and Development Stage (2) Manufacturing or Importing (3) Storage (4) Transportation (5) Use (6) Disposal (7) Release into the environment and exposure to humans and ecosystem