Abstract
Research on risk perception aims to identify the broad array of factors and processes that shape the manner in which health risks are perceived and managed by individuals and societies. Among the diverse fields having contributed to the body of research in this area, psychology has provided some important findings. There is no doubt that this is largely attributable to the work of Paul Slovic and his colleagues. Through several years of work based on the psychometric paradigm, these researchers have helped to establish that individuals’ perceptions of health risks not only reflect probabilistic judgments but also their evaluations of more qualitative aspects of health risks, such as the degree of dread and uncertainty these generate (Slovic, 1987). In doing so, Slovic and his colleagues have begun to widen the scope of research in this area from the purely cognitive to the sociocultural domain. In his first book on the topic, The Perception of Risk, Slovic (2000) outlined the history of research on risk perception, with its basis in the environmentalism of the 1970s, and presented seminal work in this area. As put by the author himself, The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception ‘picks up where the last one left off, and describes the extension of risk-perception research into the first decade of the new century’ (p. xix).
A compilation of papers co-authored by Slovic over the past 10 years, the book is organized into four sections on (1) Risk as Feelings, (2) Culture, Cognition and Risk, (3) Psychometric Studies and (4) Risk Knowledge and Communication, which are prefaced by a brief introduction. In the ‘Risk as Feelings’ section, Slovic begins by presenting the results of several studies that demonstrate the importance of affect in individuals’ ability to assign meaning to and make decisions among gambles. This work sets the stage for a discussion on the interplay of rationality and affect as systems involved in individuals’ judgements of risk. Additional papers presented in this section provide examples of the way affect may account for behavioural phenomena in various risk contexts, including the greater tendency for individuals to make charitable donations when victims are identifiable rather than statistical and the reasons they start smoking despite being aware of its associated health risks. Broadening the scope, Slovic closes this section by presenting the results of two studies that demonstrate how large-scale risk events, such as a tsunami disaster, may come to have wider societal impacts through their more immediate effects on individuals’ emotions and responses.
The section on ‘Culture, Cognition and Risk’ introduces work on the general tendency of white males to perceive risks to be lower compared to other socio-demographic groups (deemed the ‘white male effect’). In a series of papers by Dan M Kahan and others, the argument is made that individuals adopt positions on risk issues that are in line with their cultural orientations and worldviews to serve identity-protective functions. This ‘cultural cognition’ perspective provides remarkable promise in reconciling two prominent models in research on risk perception – the psychometric paradigm and cultural theory – which were previously regarded as divergent.
Papers presented in the ‘Psychometric Studies’ section represent a continuation of research based on the psychometric paradigm (Slovic, 1987). In particular, the psychometric paradigm is applied to explore the public’s perception of emerging or topical risks such as biotechnology, nanotechnology and terrorism. A notable contribution in this section is a paper in which a complete example is provided of the use of psychometric study findings in systems modelling in order to develop models of the diffusion of fear in communities having experienced different types of risk events (i.e. anthrax release, bomb blast or propane tank explosion).
Finally, the ‘Risk Knowledge and Communication’ section opens with a paper on sociological research based on the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) over the past 15 years, which helped to expand on the processes that give rise to amplified risk perception and response among members of the public and to identify factors that may attenuate the public’s reactions to risk in certain contexts. The last few papers of the book revisit the role of affect in risk perception, with an exploration of some implications for risk communication. In particular, two papers on the topic of smoking risk demonstrate the potential value of shifting the focus away from risk communication interventions aimed at providing individuals with more accurate risk information to those that appeal to affect.
As might be inferred from the title, The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception underscores the increased recognition of the involvement of affect in risk perception processes. Rather than abandoning previous perspectives, Slovic discusses many of the same concepts that were introduced in his previous book but expands on their relationships with human emotion and culture. As such, the book may help to generate interest among scholars who work in areas others than cognitive or health psychology, such as social or cultural psychologists. From the book, the reader gets a clear sense of the magnitude of the contributions of Slovic and his colleagues to the body of research on risk perception. Certainly, The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception (along with The Perception of Risk) will provide a good foundation for key concepts and methods, in addition to new insights for readers who are not well versed in research on risk perception. As a compilation of previously published work, however, this book may be less informative for readers who have been keeping abreast of developments in this area. Nevertheless, these readers may appreciate the value of this compilation for its provision of a single resource for a fairly comprehensive collection of works on the topic of risk perception.