IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i6p1157-1169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One Too Many? Understanding the Influence of Risk Factor Quantity on Perceptions of Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Ian G. J. Dawson
  • Johnnie E. V. Johnson
  • Michelle A. Luke

Abstract

Forming a subjective risk judgment in circumstances that feature multiple risk factors is a common, yet complex task. One would expect variations in the number of risk factors in a given situation to have an important influence on risk judgments, yet the exact nature of this influence remains empirically untested. We conducted three studies to address this issue. In Study 1, we found that, when individuals were confronted with a preset number of risk factors (zero, one, two, or three) in the same scenario, their risk judgments were virtually identical for zero, one, and two risk factors, yet markedly higher for three risk factors. By contrast, Study 2 showed that when confronted with variations in the number of risk factors (zero, one, two, and three) for that same scenario, individuals' risk judgments increased/decreased in relatively even increments concurrent with increases/decreases in the number of risk factors. Study 3 identified that pronounced increases in risk judgments, like those observed in Study 1, may occur when the numbers of factors is “high” relative to the potential victim's vulnerability to those factors. Our results show that the number of risk factors in given circumstances can have an important influence on risk judgments and that this influence can differ based on the characteristics of the situation. We discuss how these findings provide a better understanding of subjective risk judgments and highlight the importance of those who seek to communicate risk information being mindful of how data about multiple risk factors could be (mis)interpreted.

Suggested Citation

  • Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2017. "One Too Many? Understanding the Influence of Risk Factor Quantity on Perceptions of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1157-1169, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:6:p:1157-1169
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12690
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12690?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. Nicholas Scurich & Richard S. John, 2014. "Perceptions of Randomized Security Schedules," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 765-770, April.
    2. Donald A. Redelmeier & Derek J. Koehler & Varda Liberman & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Probability Judgment in Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(3), pages 227-230, August.
    3. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2012. "Do People Believe Combined Hazards Can Present Synergistic Risks?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 801-815, May.
    4. David P. French & Emma L. Gayton & Jessica Burton & Margaret Thorogood & Theresa M. Marteau, 2002. "Measuring Perceptions of Synergistic Circulatory Disease Risk Due to Smoking and the Oral Contraceptive Pill," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1139-1151, December.
    5. Terre A. Satterfield & C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 115-129, February.
    6. Eva Lermer & Bernhard Streicher & Rainer Sachs & Martina Raue & Dieter Frey, 2016. "Thinking Concretely Increases the Perceived Likelihood of Risks: The Effect of Construal Level on Risk Estimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 623-637, March.
    7. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    8. Andrew Lloyd & Paul Hayes & Peter R. F. Bell & A. Ross Naylor, 2001. "The Role of Risk and Benefit Perception in Informed Consent for Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 141-149, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    2. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2014. "Growing Pains: How Risk Perception and Risk Communication Research Can Help to Manage the Challenges of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1378-1390, August.
    3. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    4. Winkler, Harald & Baumert, Kevin & Blanchard, Odile & Burch, Sarah & Robinson, John, 2007. "What factors influence mitigative capacity?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 692-703, January.
    5. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    6. Ronald L. Schumann & Kevin D. Ash & Gregg C. Bowser, 2018. "Tornado Warning Perception and Response: Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 311-332, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Eva Lermer & Bernhard Streicher & Rainer Sachs & Martina Raue & Dieter Frey, 2016. "The Effect of Abstract and Concrete Thinking on Risk-Taking Behavior in Women and Men," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(3), pages 21582440166, August.
    9. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1998. "A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(7), pages 879-895, July.
    10. Jonathon P. Schuldt & Adam R. Pearson & Neil A. Lewis jr. & Ashley Jardina & Peter K. Enns, 2022. "Inequality and Misperceptions of Group Concerns Threaten the Integrity and Societal Impact of Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 195-207, March.
    11. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    12. Sandrine Gaymard & Teodor Tiplica, 2014. "Conditional respect towards the pedestrian: difference between men and women and risk modeling by the Bayesian approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 91-110, January.
    13. Enrico Diecidue & Dolchai La-ornual, 2009. "Reconciling support theory and the book-making principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 173-190, June.
    14. Anna Olofsson & Saman Rashid, 2011. "The White (Male) Effect and Risk Perception: Can Equality Make a Difference?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 1016-1032, June.
    15. Zhiyong Huang & Haoxian Wang & Wenyuan Zheng, 2021. "An extended hierarchical ordered probit model robust to heteroskedastic vignette perceptions with an application to functional limitation assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Bravata, D. M. & Cottle, R. W. & Eaves, B. C. & Olkin, I., 2001. "Measuring conformability of probabilities," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 321-327, April.
    17. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    18. John A. List & Ragan Petrie & Anya Samek, 2023. "How Experiments with Children Inform Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(2), pages 504-564, June.
    19. Angela Bearth & Franziska Hofer & Tamara Stotz & Signe Ghelfi, 2021. "Increasing the deterrence of airport security checks by managing expectations through communication: a hypothetical scenario experiment," Journal of Transportation Security, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 275-289, December.
    20. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.

    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:37:y:2017:i:6:p:1157-1169. 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.