No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Abstract : This was a study of cue utilization based on the correlational Lens Model. During training, 40 Ss learned how to use each of two independent numerical cues, separately, to predict a numerical criterion. One cue correlated .40 with the criterion; the other cue correlated .80 with the criterion. The Ss were trained to use scatter plots and regression lines to help them predict the criterion from the cue. Feedback of the true criterion value was given after every trial. Analysis of cue utilization was focused on the concept of conservatism, a concept borrowed from Bayesian studies of information processing. The Ss in this study were found to be conservative. The four groups did not differ in total accuracy but the successive-presentation groups showed an effect not found in the simultaneous-presentation groups: the first cue was used with greater conservatism than was the second cue. Thus it was shown that a concept of human information-processing inadequacy, conservatism, which was originally developed under one paradigm (Bayesian research), can be successfully translated to another paradigm (Lens Model research), to expand the generality of the concept. (Author)
No abstract is provided for this article.
This paper reports the results of a national survey in which perceptions of environmental health risks were measured for 1275 white and 214 nonwhite persons. The results showed that white women perceived risks to be much higher than did white men, a result that is consistent with previous studies. However, this gender difference was not true of nonwhite women and men, whose perceptions of risk were quite similar. Most striking was the finding that white males tended to differ from everyone else in their attitudes and perceptions–on average, they perceived risks as much smaller and much more acceptable than did other people. These results suggest that sociopolitical factors such as power, status, alienation, and trust are strong determiners of people's perception and acceptance of risks.
The 1991 Nevada State Telephone Survey was implemented by Decision Research on behalf of the State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects/Nuclear Waste Project Office (NWPO) as part of an ongoing socioeconomic impact assessment study. The scope of this survey was considerably smaller than a previous survey conducted in 1989 and focused more upon public evaluations of the Yucca Mountain repository program and the trust Nevadans currently addressing the siting issues. In order to provide place in key public officials who are Longitudinal data on the repository program, the 1991 questionnaire consisted of questions that were used in the 1989 NWPO survey which was conducted by Mountain West Research. As a result, the findings from this survey are compared with analogous items from the 1989 survey, and with the results from a survey commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and reported in their issue of October 21, 1990. The Review-Journal survey was conducted by Bruce Merri11 of the Arizona State University Media Research Center. A more complete comparison of the 1989 and 1991 surveys sponsored by NWPO is possible since the researchers at Decision Research had access to both these databases. The only source of information for the Review-Journal findings was the articles published in the Fall, 1990. The findings of the 1991 survey show that Nevadans oppose the federal government attempts to locate a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain. They support a policy of opposition on the part of Nevada officials. They believe that Nevadans should have the final say in whether to accept the repository or not, and they reject the proposition that benefits from the repository program will outweigh the harms. These findings are very similar to survey results from 1989 and 1990 and once again demonstrate very widespread public opposition by Nevadans to the current federal repository program.
Much natural resource policy work stresses the importance of involving lay and expert stakeholders in a dialogue about environmental values pertaining to decisions about land management. To this end, there is growing interest in value elicitation techniques that: (a) provide alternatives to values expressed as willingness to pay formulas; and (b) do a good job of representing the many social, ethical, scientific, or economic value dimensions of a problem and linking those dimensions to the evaluation of a specific policy. Toward these objectives, this paper explores the technique of narrative valuation, that is, the act of situating a valuation and decision problem in the context of a narrated story. It reports on an experiment that tested a narrative-based representation of a problem against a utilitarian one (didactic text) to see which representation better served the decision process. The relative proficiency of both formats was tested in the context of a policy decision about the impact of hydroelectric power production on a river’s salmon population. The narrative technique appeared better able to help participants consider relevant value information such that they could apply that information to a complex policy judgment. Some reasons for the success of the narrative condition are discussed, including the technique’s capacity for engaging participants and rendering technical information salient. The paper closes with some recommendations for further tests of narrative-based valuation tools.
This article memorializes Sarah Lichtenstein (1933-2017). Lichtenstein is aptly described as a "powerhouse in the field of decision-making research." In addition to her work on preference and probability estimation, Sarah, Baruch Fischhoff, and the author co-developed what has come to be known as the psychometric paradigm for the study of risk perception. This research showed that the public has a broad conception of risk that incorporates considerations such as uncertainty, dread, catastrophic potential, controllability, and risk to future generations into the risk equation. This has led to the appreciation that the values associated with these qualities need to be considered and respected in risk-management decisions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Public response to risks of nuclear energy is investigated. A quantitative description of the attitudes, perceptions, and expectations of some members of the antinuclear public is given. Sample studies of the public at large were not made; most of the data in the paper comes from survey made at the University of Oregon and another with members of the Eugene, Oregon, League of Women Voters. Perceived risks and benefits, relative to other activities; risk characteristics; the reasons nuclear power is thought to be so dangerous; why death from nuclear power is thought to be so much worse than death from other causes; fatality estimates and disaster multipliers for 30 activities and technologies (alcoholic beverages, bicycles, commercial aviation, contraceptives, electric power, nuclear power, vaccinations, x-rays); fatality estimates associated with maximum credible disasters from commerical aviation and nuclear power are some of the areas covered in the surveys. The authors' view is that educational attempts designed to reduce the perception gap are probably doomed to failure, based on technical and psychological aspects of the problem. After discussing these issues, pathways toward acceptance of nuclear and nonnuclear energy systems are examined.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Subjects who judged speed in a driving scenario overestimated how fast they could decelerate when speeding compared to when keeping within the speed limit (Svenson, 2009). The purpose of the present studies were to replicate studies conducted in Europe with subjects in the U.S., to study the influence of speed unit (kph vs. mph), affective reactions to outcome (collision) and identity of main actor (driver) on braking speed judgments. The results replicated the European findings and the outcome affective factor (passing a line/killing a child) and the actor factor (subject/driver in general) had significant effects on judgments of braking speed. The results were related to psychological theory and applied implications were discussed.
Human beings have always been intuitive toxicologists, relying on their senses of sight, taste, and smell to detect harmful or unsafe food, water, and air. As we have come to recognize that our senses are not adequate to assess the dangers inherent in exposure to a chemical substance, we have created the sciences of toxicology and risk assessment to perform this function. Yet despite this great effort to overcome the limitations of intuitive toxicology, it has become evident that even our best scientific methods still depend heavily on extrapolations and judgments in order to infer human health risks from animal data. Many observers have acknowledged the inherent subjectivity in the assessment of chemical risks and have indicated a need to examine the subjective or intuitive elements of expert and lay risk judgments. We have begun such an examination by surveying members of the Society of Toxicology and the lay public about basic toxicological concepts, assumptions, and interpretations. Our results demonstrate large differences between toxicologists and laypeople, as well as differences between toxicologists working in industry, academia, and government. In addition, we find that toxicologists are sharply divided in their opinions about the ability to predict a chemical's effect on human health on the basis of animal studies. We argue that these results place the problems of risk communication in a new light. Although the survey identifies misconceptions that experts should clarify for the public, it also suggests that controversies over chemical risks may be fueled as much by limitations of the science of risk assessment and disagreements among experts as by public misconceptions.
Using an online survey with embedded experimental conditions, the study examines gender and generational differences in reader reaction to news reports of mass violence in Africa. Affective response from women was found stronger than for men on 9 of 10 measures of emotion. But the gender gap disappears when the story is personalized. Depending on story framing, older readers tended to express greater affective response than millennials.
