Johnson Branden B
Bureau of Risk Analysis, Division of Science, Research and Technology, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ, USA.
Risk Anal. 2004 Feb;24(1):103-14. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00415.x.
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.
为了拓展关于风险比较效果的有限实证基础，一项试点实验探讨了此类比较的不同要素可能如何影响公众反应。所使用的情景是对一家安装石棉的公司进行的假设性审判，该公司使一所初中的学生和教职员工面临“不合理风险”，此情景最早由斯洛维奇等人（1990年）使用。研究参与者扮演审判中的陪审员角色，被要求对风险、公司的罪责、是否应使其对未来健康影响承担责任、学校在当前状况下是否应被占用，以及是否应以300万美元的成本清除石棉进行评分。新泽西居民的机会样本（n = 309）收到了旨在改变四个比较属性的信息：比较维度的数量；单一与多种表达死亡率的方式；用于解释和证明风险比较的叙述；以及参与者的假设角色（陪审员与家长）。因变量是由五个比较后判断中的四个构建的危害量表。方差分析发现，格式变化的影响被对石棉的担忧所掩盖，没有叙述和家长角色是仅有的增加负面风险反应的属性。多元回归分析发现，当这些因素（加上死亡格式）是唯一的自变量时，多维性、叙述、角色以及任何风险比较的存在都有显著影响。然而，当将对石棉的担忧、风险信念（致癌物没有安全暴露水平；任何暴露都会导致癌症）和人口统计学变量纳入分析时，只有多维性（增加负面反应）仍具有显著性。仅担忧和风险信念就解释了危害得分中33%的方差；加入人口统计学和风险比较变量后，解释方差仅提高到36%（家中有孩子且接触多维风险比较会提高得分；年龄和收入会降低得分）。结果强调了风险比较信息对风险观点的潜在微小影响（至少在受试者之间），但为实证文献中迄今未探讨的信息设计方面提供了一些见解。
