IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v12y1992i4p535-541.html

Probabilistic Connotations of Carcinogen Hazard Classifications: Analysis of Survey Data for Anchoring Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah E. Spedden
  • P. Barry Ryan

Abstract

A study was undertaken to test for anchoring effects when numerical probabilities were elicited for carcinogen hazard designations. Subjects were asked to assign probabilities to both probable and possible. The sequence was randomly varied so that half of the subjects evaluated probable first and half evaluated possible first. While there was no consensus on the numerical probabilistic meanings assigned to these verbal expressions, in general, probable was assigned a higher probability than possible and there were specific values that were assigned frequently, indicating some consistency in interpretation. There appeared to be a fairly constant scaling factor between the probabilities assigned to the designations. Anchoring was manifested in two ways: a smaller difference between the designations when they were evaluated in sequence than when they were evaluated in isolation, and assignment of readily accessible “benchmark” values such as 50% and 75%.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah E. Spedden & P. Barry Ryan, 1992. "Probabilistic Connotations of Carcinogen Hazard Classifications: Analysis of Survey Data for Anchoring Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 535-541, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:12:y:1992:i:4:p:535-541
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00710.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00710.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00710.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John S. Evans & John D. Graham & George M. Gray & Robert L. Sielken, 1994. "A Distributional Approach to Characterizing Low‐Dose Cancer Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 25-34, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Torbjorn Malmfors, 1999. "“How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 649-659, August.
    2. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    3. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    4. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    5. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    6. Bernd Kowall & Jürgen Breckenkamp & Kristina Heyer & Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff, 2010. "German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 55(5), pages 507-512, October.
    7. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    8. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    9. Okumah, Murat & Yeboah, Ata Senior & Bonyah, Sylvester Kwaku, 2020. "What matters most? Stakeholders’ perceptions of river water quality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    11. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    12. Gupta, Prerna & Satterfield, Terre & Kandlikar, Milind & Ramana, M.V., 2026. "Rethinking risk perception: Cultural cognition, gender, and caste in how Indians view nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    13. Bryan Caplan, 2009. "Irrational principals," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 22(2), pages 159-167, June.
    14. Nakayachi, Kazuya & Watabe, Motoki, 2005. "Restoring trustworthiness after adverse events: The signaling effects of voluntary "Hostage Posting" on trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 1-17, May.
    15. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    16. Maria Grazia Filomena & Bruno Pace & Massimo De Acetis & Antonio Aquino & Massimo Crescimbene & Marina Pace & Francesca Romana Alparone, 2023. "Play to Learn: A Game to Improve Seismic-Risk Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, March.
    17. Michael R. Greenberg & Dona F. Schneider, 1995. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Non‐Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 503-511, August.
    18. Dirk Scheer & Christina Benighaus & Ludger Benighaus & Ortwin Renn & Stefan Gold & Bettina Röder & Gaby‐Fleur Böl, 2014. "The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1270-1285, July.
    19. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    20. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:12:y:1992:i:4:p:535-541. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.