Bronfman Nicolás C, Cifuentes Luis A
Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial y de Systemas, Ponitificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Risk Anal. 2003 Dec;23(6):1271-85. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00400.x.
In this work we characterize risk perception in Chile, based on the psychometric paradigm, exploring the difference between perceived social and personal risk. For this purpose, we conducted a survey including 54 hazards, 16 risk attributes, and 3 risk constructs. The survey, divided into four parts, was administered to 508 residents of Santiago, Chile. Using factor analysis, three main factors, which accounted for 80% of the sample's variance, were identified: factor 1, commonly called "Dread Risk" in the literature, explained 37% of variance; factor 2, "Unknown Risk," explained 28%; and factor 3, which we called "Personal Effect," explained 15% of the variance. On average, individuals perceived themselves as less exposed to risk and with more control and knowledge about them than the general population. OLS regression models were used to test the association of perceived risk with the three main factors. For social risk, factor 1 had the greatest explanatory power, while factor 2 had a negative sign. For personal risk, only factors 2 and 3 were significant, with factor 3 having the greatest explanatory power. Risk denial (defined as the difference between perceived personal and social risk) was associated with factors 1 and 2 only, with factor 2 having a negative sign. The difference between desired and actual regulation levels proved positive for all hazards, thus indicating that Chileans are dissatisfied with the current regulation level for all the hazards analyzed. The comparison of data at the aggregate and at the individual subject's level suggests that while the aggregate analysis overestimates the magnitude of the correlations it still reflects the tendency of the individual responses.
在这项研究中，我们基于心理测量范式对智利的风险认知进行了特征描述，探究了感知到的社会风险与个人风险之间的差异。为此，我们开展了一项调查，涵盖54种危害、16种风险属性和3种风险结构。该调查分为四个部分，对智利圣地亚哥的508名居民进行了调查。通过因子分析，确定了三个主要因子，它们解释了样本方差的80%：因子1，在文献中通常称为“恐惧风险”，解释了37%的方差；因子2，“未知风险”，解释了28%；因子3，我们称之为“个人影响”，解释了15%的方差。平均而言，个体认为自己比一般人群面临的风险更低，且对风险有更多的控制和了解。使用普通最小二乘法回归模型来检验感知风险与这三个主要因子之间的关联。对于社会风险，因子1具有最大的解释力，而因子2带有负号。对于个人风险，只有因子2和因子3是显著的，其中因子3具有最大的解释力。风险否认（定义为感知到的个人风险与社会风险之间的差异）仅与因子1和因子2相关，因子2带有负号。期望的监管水平与实际监管水平之间的差异对所有危害而言均为正，这表明智利人对所有分析的危害的当前监管水平不满意。总体数据与个体层面数据的比较表明，虽然总体分析高估了相关性的程度，但它仍然反映了个体反应的趋势。
