IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i10p1802-1811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric and Demographic Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Terrorist Threats and the Willingness to Pay for Terrorism Risk Management Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Jeryl L. Mumpower
  • Liu Shi
  • James W. Stoutenborough
  • Arnold Vedlitz

Abstract

A 2009 national telephone survey of 924 U.S. adults assessed perceptions of terrorism and homeland security issues. Respondents rated severity of effects, level of understanding, number affected, and likelihood of four terrorist threats: poisoned water supply; explosion of a small nuclear device in a major U.S. city; an airplane attack similar to 9/11; and explosion of a bomb in a building, train, subway, or highway. Respondents rated perceived risk and willingness to pay (WTP) for dealing with each threat. Demographic, attitudinal, and party affiliation data were collected. Respondents rated bomb as highest in perceived risk but gave the highest WTP ratings to nuclear device. For both perceived risk and WTP, psychometric variables were far stronger predictors than were demographic ones. OLS regression analyses using both types of variables to predict perceived risk found only two significant demographic predictors for any threat—Democrat (a negative predictor for bomb) and white male (a significant positive predictor for airline attack). In contrast, among psychometric variables, severity, number affected, and likelihood were predictors of all four threats and level of understanding was a predictor for one. For WTP, education was a negative predictor for three threats; no other demographic variables were significant predictors for any threat. Among psychometric variables, perceived risk and number affected were positive predictors of WTP for all four threats; severity and likelihood were predictors for three; level of understanding was a significant predictor for two.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeryl L. Mumpower & Liu Shi & James W. Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2013. "Psychometric and Demographic Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Terrorist Threats and the Willingness to Pay for Terrorism Risk Management Programs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1802-1811, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:10:p:1802-1811
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12033
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12033?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. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-235, December.
    2. Elizabeth L. Anderson, 2002. "Assessing the Risks of Terrorism: A Special Collection of Perspectives Articles by Former Presidents of the Society for Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 401-402, June.
    3. Jennifer E. C. Lee & Louise Lemyre, 2009. "A Social‐Cognitive Perspective of Terrorism Risk Perception and Individual Response in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1265-1280, September.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    5. James A. Brox & Ramesh C. Kumar & Kenneth R. Stollery, 2003. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Improved Water Quality in the Presence of Item Nonresponse Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 414-428.
    6. Paul Slovic, 2002. "Terrorism as Hazard: A New Species of Trouble," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 425-426, June.
    7. Stinson, Thomas F. & Kinsey, Jean D. & Degeneffe, Dennis J. & Ghosh, Koel, 2006. "How Should America's Anti-Terrorism Budget Be Allocated? Findings from a National Survey of Attitudes of U.S. Residents about Terrorism," Working Papers 14351, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    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. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2017. "Recollection Bias and Its Underpinnings: Lessons from Terrorism Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 969-981, May.
    2. James W. Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz & Xinsheng Liu, 2015. "The Influence of Specific Risk Perceptions on Public Policy Support," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 102-120, March.
    3. Sara E. Grineski & Timothy W. Collins & Jayajit Chakraborty & Marilyn Montgomery, 2017. "Hazard Characteristics and Patterns of Environmental Injustice: Household‐Level Determinants of Environmental Risk in Miami, Florida," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1419-1434, July.
    4. Jayajit Chakraborty & Timothy W. Collins & Sara E. Grineski & Alejandra Maldonado, 2017. "Racial Differences in Perceptions of Air Pollution Health Risk: Does Environmental Exposure Matter?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Irina A. Iles & Michael J. Egnoto & Brooke Fisher Liu & Gary Ackerman & Holly Roberts & Daniel Smith, 2017. "Understanding the Adoption Process of National Security Technology: An Integration of Diffusion of Innovations and Volitional Behavior Theories," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2246-2259, November.
    6. Alejandra Maldonado & Timothy W. Collins & Sara E. Grineski & Jayajit Chakraborty, 2016. "Exposure to Flood Hazards in Miami and Houston: Are Hispanic Immigrants at Greater Risk than Other Social Groups?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Bardwell Harrison & Iqbal Mohib, 2021. "The Economic Impact of Terrorism from 2000 to 2018," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 27(2), pages 227-261, May.
    8. Gilboa, Shaked & Seger-Guttmann, Tali & Partouche-Sebban, Judith, 2022. "Increasing customer loyalty and WOM in an age of terror: Cross-cultural development and validation of the customers’ reactions to terror scale (CRTS)," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    9. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    10. Reeko Watanabe & Tsunemi Watanabe & Kyohei Wakui, 2021. "Acceptance of Main Power Generation Sources among Japan’s Undergraduate Students: The Roles of Knowledge, Experience, Trust, and Perceived Risk and Benefit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1, November.
    11. Xinsheng Liu & Kent E. Portney & Jeryl L. Mumpower & Arnold Vedlitz, 2019. "Terrorism Risk Assessment, Recollection Bias, and Public Support for Counterterrorism Policy and Spending," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 553-570, March.

    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. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    2. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    3. Henk Folmer & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2011. "Does Environmental Economics Produce Aeroplanes Without Engines? On the Need for an Environmental Social Science," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 337-361, March.
    4. Henrik Svedsäter, 2003. "Economic Valuation of the Environment: How Citizens Make Sense of Contingent Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 122-135.
    5. Desvousges, William H. & Gard, Nicholas & Michael, Holly J. & Chance, Anne D., 2018. "Habitat and Resource Equivalency Analysis: A Critical Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 74-89.
    6. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2013. "Trust, trust games and stated trust: Evidence from rural Bangladesh," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 286-298.
    8. Ivo Bischoff, 2008. "Endowment effect theory, prediction bias and publicly provided goods: an experimental study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 283-296, March.
    9. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    10. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2006. "Cost Benefit Rules when Nature Counts," Working Papers in Economics 198, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 09 May 2006.
    11. Bernard van denBerg & Werner Brouwer & Job van Exel & Marc Koopmanschap, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 169-183, February.
    12. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2008. "Who are the trustworthy, we think?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 456-465, December.
    13. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Valuing Public Goods: The Life Satisfaction Approach," IEW - Working Papers 184, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    14. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    15. Zendehdel, Kamran & Rademaker, Michael & De Baets, Bernard & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2008. "Qualitative valuation of environmental criteria through a group consensus based on stochastic dominance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 253-264, September.
    16. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    17. Andrea Leiter & Gerald Pruckner, 2009. "Proportionality of Willingness to Pay to Small Changes in Risk: The Impact of Attitudinal Factors in Scope Tests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(2), pages 169-186, February.
    18. Abiodun Olusola Omotayo & Peter Tshepiso Ndhlovu & Seleke Christopher Tshwene & Kehinde Oluseyi Olagunju & Adeyemi Oladapo Aremu, 2021. "Determinants of Household Income and Willingness to Pay for Indigenous Plants in North West Province, South Africa: A Two-Stage Heckman Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, May.
    19. Aronsson, Thomas & Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Social Decisions," Working Papers in Economics 485, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Henrik Andersson & Mikael Svensson, 2008. "Cognitive ability and scale bias in the contingent valuation method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 481-495, April.

    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:33:y:2013:i:10:p:1802-1811. 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.