Affecting Perception of Risk

Examples ofTypical QRA Objectives Types of Eacility Resotirces/Personnel Classical Limitations of QRA Example of Mortality Statistics Issues Affecting Perception of Risk Typical Pitfalls in Using QRA... 

Those who chose to participate in a research study perceived that there was no risk of harm associated with participation. Parental age affects perceptions of risk parents who were older (over 30 years) assessed the risks as significantly lower than their younger counterparts (Tait et al., 2004). Furthermore, those who had experience of participation in clinical research had a more positive outlook than those did not have research experience. Sociological factors may have some influence on parental participation in clinical studies. One study has indicated that parents with a higher socioeconomic status and more social support were less motivated to contribute to medical research (Harth and Thong, 1990). 

Very little research exists on how the public use the mass media for risk information. The psychology literature examining what affects nonscientists perceptions of risk is useful, but mass communication and media scholars are just beginning to gather data in this area. Sharon Dunwoody at the University of Wisconsin is finishing a content analysis of media risk stories to see how such information affects individuals risk perceptions. 

Trust is another important factor affecting the perception of risk by parents. Those who had more trust in the medical system tended to have a more positive outlook on research studies. It is not surprising to discover that individuals from ethic minorities have less trust in research and the medical establishment and are less likely to take part in clinical research (Corbie-Smith et al., 1999 Shavers and Burmeister, 2002). 

If we accept that the perception of risk is linked to a number of extraneous factors then how do these elements affect society s view of HIT In the main it is probably fair to assume that the public gives little regard to the safety characteristics of technology in healthcare. There is an implicit assumption that the tools we use to support care are fit for purpose, well maintained, in good working order and are operated by trained individuals. These are indeed reasonable expectations so when defects in those systems or the way they are operated introduces hazards this can be difficult to justify to the patient on whom the risk is ultimately imposed. 

Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P. Johnson S.M. (2000) The Affect Heuristic in Judgements and Benefits. In P. Slovic (ed) The Perception of Risk. Ixrndon Earthscan. 

The most recent psychometric research is mainly dedicated to emotion and affect (Peters 1996, Slovic 2002, Finucane 2006). In the light of neuroscience works (Damasio 1994), these studies confirm in general that the affective apprehension of risk is prior to the cognitive/rational perception of risk (Finucane 2000, Rundmo 2002). This result is fundamental insofar as being prior, the affective dimension of risk perception appears to determine globally the way an individual apprehends a risk. 

One variation of the Multiple Causation Theory is R. J. Firenzie s Theory of Accident Causation. Firenzie s theory is based on interaction among three components person, machine, and environment. Human variables of information, decisions, and perception of risks combine with machine hazards and environmental factors affecting the likelihood of an accident. 

Despite these very real problems with the new risk management techniques, their symbolism is not wasted on either the industry or the regulator. They both understand that it is one way of publicly demonstrating that they are addressing risk (Clarke, 1999 Hood and Jones, 1996 86), and this is felt hy both to be especially important given that the railway industry is much more in the public view than many other industries and this may well affect public perceptions of risk. But at the same time that more systematic approaches to... 

Why do some people fear flying more than driving in a car even though the statistics indicate that flying is a safer mode of transportation Many factors affect this perception of risk. Table 6.1.1.2 shows a variety of factors that... 

The tendency to make propositions at a very high level of generality and without fully specified mechanisms continued. Thus, Jiang, Underwood, and Howarth (1992), in their theoretical model for adaptations to change , tell us that objective risk is not the same as subjective risk and that cognition of risk depends on the possibility of perception of risk. In other words, drivers can only evaluate risks if they perceive them. They go on to state that road users responses to subjective risk will be affected by motivations that can be expressed in the form of a utility maximisation function, but they also state that road users usually have no clear quantitative description of how their actions can affect the benefit they want to maximise (p. 259). We are thus little the wiser in terms of any verifiable predictions. 

Several factors were discussed in this chapter that affect whether employees react to workplace hazards with alarm, apathy, or something in between. Taken together, these factors shape personal perceptions of risk and illustrate why the job of improving safety is so daunting. This justifies more resources for safety and health programs, as well as intervention plans to motivate continual employee involvement. I discuss various intervention approaches in Section 4. But before discussing strategies to fix the problem, we need to understand how stress, distress, and personal attributions contribute to the problem. That is our topic for the next chapter. 

When people artificially reduce risk— by manipulating the formulas by which they calculate risk or dismissing data that conflicts with preconceived notions of risk—they also increase the potential for disaster. Any manipulation that artificially increases or decreases the perception of risk can affect future estimates of risk and their outcomes throughout the entire Cycle. 

A second effect, known as secondary biaSy represents these deviations away from the line of best fit which captured the primary bias. Lichtenstein et al. observe that hazards with an upward secondary bias are "generally dramatic and sensational whereas [hazards with downward secondary bias] tend to be unspectacular events, which claim one victim at a time. Spectacular multifatality accidents receive extensive media coverage (Combs and Slovic, 1979), which Johnson and Tversky (1983) found affected peoples "mood and led to a heightened perception of risk. 

Johnson, Eric J., and Amos Tversky. (1983). "Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 45(1), pp. 20-31. 

To conclude, this sampling of the literature of risk perception, the comments of Covello, 1981 may be summarized. Surveys have been of small specialized groups - generally not representative of the population as a whole. There has been little attempt to analyze the effects of ethnicity, religion, sex, region age, occupation and other variables that may affect risk perception. People respond to surveys with the first thing that comes to mind and tend to stick to this answer. They provide an answer to any question asked even when they have no opinion, do not understand the question or have inconsistent beliefs. Surveys are influenced by the order of questions, speed of response, whether a verbal or numerical respon.se is required and by how the answer is posed. Few Studies have examined the relationships between perceptions of technological hazards and behavior which seems to be influenced by several factors such as positive identification with a leader, efficacy of social and action, physical proximity to arenas of social conflict. 

From a review of risk research, the following contextual variables affect individual and societal perceptions of various degrees of risk (adapted from [12]) ... 

Compared with analysing the socio-economic consequences of chemical production and use in terms of the impact on variables such as employment and industrial competitiveness, EU risk management decision-making clearly lacks a method to evaluate the consequence that perceived chemical risks have on perceptions of equity. Moreover, there appears to be little consideration of how decisions can affect trust in regulatory institutions. Yet, as described in Chapter 2 and explored in Chapter 4, these social dimensions of risk prove fundamental to regulation. 

The educational level of the people, and an understanding of the science underlying a risk, will clearly affect the perception of a risk. The media have a crucial role to play in explaining and presenting information, but unfortunately they may sometimes exaggerate risks and thereby increase anxiety. 

In the main, research to date has focused on understanding individual differences in risk perception and on the interactions between sources and recipients. However, recently, increasing attention has been paid to the social context in which risk communication is performed. Research in this area has led to a greater awareness of the sociocultural factors that affect the transmission of risk information. 

---