• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims
【24h】

Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims

机译：风险比较，冲突和风险可接受性声明

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Despite many claims for and against the use of risk comparisons in risk communication, few empirical studies have explored their effect. Even fewer have examined the public's relative preferences among different kinds of risk comparisons. Two studies, published in this journal in 1990 and 2003, used seven measures of "acceptability" to examine public reaction to 14 examples of risk comparisons, as used by a hypothetical factory manager to explain risks of his ethylene oxide plant. This study examined the effect on preferences of scenarios involving low or high conflict between the factory manager and residents of the hypothetical town (as had the 2003 study), and inclusion of a claim that the comparison demonstrated the risks' acceptability. It also tested the Finucane et al. (2000) affect hypothesis that information emphasizing low risks―as in these risk comparisons―would raise benefits estimates without changing risk estimates. Using similar but revised scenarios, risk comparison examples (10 instead of 14), and evaluation measures, an opportunity sample of 303 New Jersey residents rated the comparisons, and the risks and benefits of the factory. On average, all comparisons received positive ratings on all evaluation measures in all conditions. Direct and indirect measures showed that the conflict manipulation worked; overall, No-Conflict and Conflict scenarios evoked scores that were not significantly different. The attachment to each risk comparison of a risk acceptability claim ("So our factory's risks should be acceptable to you.") did not worsen ratings relative to conditions lacking this claim. Readers who did or did not see this claim were equally likely to infer an attempt to persuade them to accept the risk from the comparison. As in the 2003 article, there was great individual variability in inferred rankings of the risk comparisons. However, exposure to the risk comparisons did not reduce risk estimates significantly (while raising benefit estimates), and Conflict-Claim respondents found the risk of the hypothetical factory less acceptable than No-Conflict respondents. Results suggest that neither risk comparisons nor risk acceptability claims are automatically anathema to audiences, but they may have tiny or unintended effects on audience judgments about risky situations.
机译：尽管有很多主张和反对在风险交流中使用风险比较的主张，但很少有实证研究探索其影响。更少的人研究了公众在不同类型的风险比较中的相对偏好。两项研究分别于1990年和2003年在该杂志上发表，使用了七个“可接受性”量度来检验公众对14个风险比较示例的反应，一个假设的工厂经理用它来解释其环氧乙烷工厂的风险。这项研究检验了工厂经理与假设城镇的居民之间发生高低冲突的情景对偏好的影响（与2003年的研究一样），并纳入了比较证明风险可以接受的说法。它还测试了Finucane等人。 （2000年）影响了这样一个假设，即强调低风险的信息（如这些风险比较）会提高收益估计，而不会改变风险估计。使用类似但经过修订的方案，风险比较示例（从10个代替14个）和评估方法，新泽西州303名居民的机会样本对比较以及工厂的风险和收益进行了评估。平均而言，在所有条件下，所有比较在所有评估指标上均获得正面评价。直接和间接的措施表明，操纵冲突是有效的。总体而言，“无冲突”和“冲突”场景所产生的分数没有显着差异。相对于缺乏此要求的条件，风险可接受性要求的每个风险比较的附件（“因此，我们的工厂风险应为您可以接受。”）不会使评级恶化。没看过或没看过这种说法的读者很可能会说服他们接受比较的风险。与2003年的文章一样，风险比较的推断排名中存在很大的个体差异。但是，暴露于风险比较中并没有显着降低风险估计（提高收益估计），并且有冲突要求的受访者发现，假设工厂的风险要比没有冲突的受访者低。结果表明，风险比较和风险可接受性声明都不会自动引起听众的厌恶，但它们可能会对听众对危险情况的判断产生微小或意想不到的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号