Varying risk comparison elements: effects on public reactions.

Expanding a limited empirical base on effects of risk comparisons, a pilot experiment explored how varying elements of such comparisons might influence public response. The scenario used was a hypothetical trial of an asbestos-installing firm for putting students and staff at a junior high school at "unreasonable risk," first used by Slovic et al. (1990). Study participants played the role of jurors in the trial, asked to rate the risk, the firm's guilt, whether it should be made liable for future health effects, whether the school should be occupied in its current condition, and whether the asbestos should be removed at a cost of 3 million dollars. Opportunity samples of New Jersey residents (n= 309) received information intended to vary four comparison attributes: number of dimensions of comparison; single versus multiple ways of expressing mortality; a narrative to explain and justify the risk comparison; and the hypothetical role of the participant (juror vs. parent). The dependent variable was a hazard scale constructed from four of the five postcomparison judgments. ANOVA found format variations swamped in their effect by concern about asbestos, with the absence of a narrative and the parental role being the only attributes that increased negative risk reactions. Multiple regression analyses found that multidimensionality, narrative, role, and the presence of any risk comparison at all had significant effects when these (plus death formats) were the only independent variables. However, only multidimensionality (which increased negative reactions) retained significance when asbestos concern, risk beliefs (no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen; any exposure leads to cancer), and demographic variables were added to the analysis. Concern and risk beliefs alone explained 33% of variance in hazard scores; adding demographics and risk comparison variables only raised explained variance to 36% (having children at home and being exposed to multidimensional risk comparisons raised scores; age and income lowered them). The results underline the potentially small effect of risk comparison information on risk views (at least between subjects), but offer some insight into aspects of message design left unexplored in empirical literature to date.