Abstract
The role of emotions in risk perception has been held to be important, based mainly on findings in applications of the Psychometric Model and the notion of an “Affect heuristic”. These conclusions are criticized because the work on “Dread” in the tradition of the Psychometric Model has been based mainly on items measuring severity of consequences. Only one emotion item was included. Furthermore, “affect” is a word denoting emotions but in the concrete applications to the “affect heuristic” studies have been made not of emotions, but of attitudes and evaluations. In the present paper, actual data on emotions are investigated and it is found that emotions do indeed play an important role in risk perception and related attitudes. In one study, it was found that interest in a hazard (a positive emotion) was positively correlated with perceived risk. Interest was an important explanatory factor in models of demand for risk mitigation. Much recent work on emotions and attitudes suggests a three-step process, where initial cognitive processing gives rise to emotions, which in turn guide the further, more elaborate, cognitive processing. The notion of the primacy of a primitive initial emotional reaction governing belief contents is rejected. Risk communication based on such a simplistic neurophysiological model is likely to fail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Work supported in part by a grant from the Social Science Research Program of the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co (SKB).
Much of the work on the Psychometric Model uses variation between hazards, mean ratings, and not variation between individuals. The analysis of aggregated data gives a misleading picture of the strength of relationships.
There is good evidence that interest is an emotion (Silvia, 2006; Sjöberg, 2006d).
Used to measure the basic hedonic mood and emotion dimension (Sjöberg et al., 1979).
Important in the sense of being strongly correlated with attitude.
Personal risk, general risk, personal protection possibility, trust in authorities, personal knowledge about the hazards, authorities’ knowledge about the hazard and interest.
References
Alabarracín, D., Johnson, B.T. and Zanna, M.P. (eds) (2005). The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clore, G.L. and Schnall, S. (2005). The Influence of Affect on Attitude. In Alabarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., and Zanna, M.P. (eds) The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 437–492.
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1993). Risk Perceptions Related to Varied Frames of Reference. Paper presented at the SRA Europe Third Conference. Risk analysis: Underlying rationales, Paris.
Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. and Sjöberg, L. (1990). Risk Perception and Worries after the Chernobyl Accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp 135–149.
Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. and Sjöberg, L. (1991). Attitudes and Conceptions of Adolescents with Regard to Nuclear Power and Radioactive Wastes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 21, No. 24, pp 2007–2035.
Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S.M. (2000). The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp 1–17.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. (1978). How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp 127–152.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review. Vol. 108, No. 4, pp 814–834.
Harris, P. and Middleton, W. (1994). The Illusion of Control and Optimism About Health: On Being Less at Risk but No More in Control Than Others. British Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 33, No. 4, pp 369–386.
Izard, C.E. (1977). Human Emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lerner, J.S., Gonzalez, R.M., Small, D.A. and Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism: A National Field Experiment. Psychological Science. Vol. 14, No. 2, pp 144–150.
Lewis, K.E. and Bierly, M. (1990). Toward a Profile of the Female Voter: Sex Differences in Perceived Physical Attractiveness and Competence of Political Candidates. Sex Roles. Vol. 22, No. 1–2, pp 1–12.
Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K. and Welch, N. (2001). Risk as Feelings. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 127, No. 2, pp 267–286.
McNally, R.J. (2003). Remembering Trauma. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes. Psychological Review. Vol. 84, No. 3, pp 231–259.
Öhman, A. (1997). As Fast as the Blink of an Eye: Evolutionary Preparedness for Preattentive Processing of Threat. In Lang, P.J. and Simons, R.F. (eds) Attention and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Processes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 165–184.
Ottati, V.C., Steenbergen, M.R. and Riggle, E. (1992). The Cognitive and Affective Components of Political Attitudes: Measuring the Determinants of Candidate Evaluations. Journal Political Behavior. Vol. 14, No. 4, pp 423–442.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sandman, P.M. (1989). Hazard Versus Outrage in the Public Perception of Risk. In Covello, V.T. (ed.) Effective Risk Communication. New York: Putnam Press, pp 45–49.
Siemer, M. and Reisenzein, R. (2007). The Process of Emotion Inference. Emotion. Vol. 7, No. 1, pp 1–20.
Silvia, P.J. (2006). Exploring the Psychology of Interest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sjöberg, L. (1992). Psychological Reactions to a Nuclear Accident. In Baarli, J. (ed.) Conference on the Radiological and Radiation Protection Problems in Nordic Regions, Tromsö, 21–22 November, 1991. Oslo: Nordic Society for Radiation Protection, (Paper 12) – see http://www.dynam-it.com/lennart/ for downloading.
Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining Risk Perception: An Empirical and Quantitative Evaluation of Cultural Theory. Risk Decision and Policy. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp 113–130.
Sjöberg, L. (1998). Worry and Risk Perception. Risk Analysis. Vol. 18, No. 1, pp 85–93.
Sjöberg, L. (1999, July). The Psychometric Paradigm Revisited. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, Royal Statistical Society, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Sjöberg, L. (2003a). The Different Dynamics of Personal and General Risk. Risk Management: An International Journal. Vol. 5, No. 3, pp 19–34.
Sjöberg, L. (2003b). Risk Perception, Emotion, and Policy: The Case of Nuclear Technology. European Review. Vol. 11, No. 1, pp 109–128.
Sjöberg, L. (2006a). Myths of the Psychometric Paradigm and How They Can Misinform Risk Communication. Paper presented at the Risk Perception and Communication Consultation Technical Meeting, organized by World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Venice, Italy, 29–30 May.
Sjöberg, L. (2006b). Nuclear Waste Risk Perceptions and Attitudes in Siting a Final Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel. In Andersson, K. (ed.) Valdor 2006. Proceedings. Stockholm, pp 452–460.
Sjöberg, L. (2006c). Opinion Och Attityder Till Förvaring Av Använt Kärnbränsle. (Opinion and Attitudes to a Repository for Spent Nuclear Fuel). Research Report R-06-97. Stockholm: SKB. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB.
Sjöberg, L. (2006d). What makes something interesting? [Review of the book Exploring the psychology of interest]. PsycCRITIQUES – Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books. Vol. 51, No. 46, (Article 4), 15 November.
Sjöberg, L. (2006e). Will the Real Meaning of Affect Please Stand Up? Journal of Risk Research. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp 101–108.
Sjöberg, L. and af Wåhlberg, A. (2002). Risk Perception and New Age Beliefs. Risk Analysis. Vol. 22, No. 4, pp 751–764.
Sjöberg, L. and Biel, A. (1983). Mood and Belief-Value Correlation. Acta Psychologica. Vol. 53, No. 3, pp 253–270.
Sjöberg, L., Jansson, B., Brenot, J., Frewer, L., Prades, A. and Tönnesen, A. (2000). Radiation Risk Perception in Commemoration of Chernobyl: A Cross-National Study in Three Waves. Rhizikon: Risk Research Report 33. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research – see http://www.dynam-it.com/lennart/ for downloading.
Sjöberg, L. and Magneberg, R. (1990). Action and Emotion in Everyday Life. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Vol. 31, No. 1, pp 9–27.
Sjöberg, L. and Wester-Herber, M. (in press). Too Much Trust in (Social) Trust? The Importance of Epistemic Concerns and Perceived Antagonism. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues.
Sjöberg, L., Svensson, E. and Persson, L.-O. (1979). The Measurement of Mood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp 1–18.
Storbeck, J., Robinson, M.D. and McCourt, M.E. (2006). Semantic Processing Precedes Affect Retrieval: The Neurological Case for Cognitive Primacy in Visual Processing. Review of General Psychology. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp 41–55.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist. Vol. 35, No. 2, pp 151–175.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sjöberg, L. Emotions and Risk Perception. Risk Manag 9, 223–237 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250038
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8250038