Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield

  • Published:
Risk Analysis

Abstract

Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept “risk” and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach—one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. R. Gregory, J. Flynn, and P. Slovic, ''Technological Stigma,'' American Scientist 83220–223 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Office of Policy Analysis, Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems(Washington, DC, Author, 1987, February).

    Google Scholar 

  3. T. O. Tengs, M. E. Adams, J. S. Pliskin, D. G. Safran, J. E. Siegel, M. Weinstein, and J. D. Graham, ''Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost Effectiveness,'' Risk Anal.15369–390 (1995).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. R. L. DuPont, Nuclear Phobia: Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power(Washington, DC, The Media Institute, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  5. V. T. Covello, W. G. Flamm, J. V. Rodricks, and R. G. Tardiff, The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks(New York, Plenum, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. F. Weiner, ''Comment on Sheila Jasanoff's Guest Editorial,'' Risk Analysis 13495–496 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. Webster, Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary2nd ed. (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz, ''Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science,'' in Social Theories of RiskS. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) (Westport, CT, Praeger, 1992), pp. 251–273.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk(Westport, CT, Praeger-Greenwood, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. Otway, ''Public Wisdom, Expert Fallibility: Toward a Contextual Theory of Risk,'' in Social Theories of RiskS. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) (Westport, CT, Praeger, 1992), pp. 215–228.

    Google Scholar 

  11. N. Pidgeon, C. Hood, D. Jones, B. Turner, and R. Gibson, ''Risk Perception,'' in Risk: Analysis, Perception and ManagementRoyal Society Study Group (ed.) (London, The Royal Society, 1992), pp. 89–134.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P. Slovic, ''Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm,'' in Social Theories of RiskS. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) (New York, Praeger, 1992), pp. 117–152.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B. Wynne, ''Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement,'' in Social Theories of RiskS. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) (Westport, CT, Praeger, 1992), pp. 275–300.

    Google Scholar 

  14. E. A. C. Crouch and R. Wilson, Risk/Benefit Analysis(Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  15. National Research Council, Improving Risk Communication(Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. Slovic, ''Perception of Risk,'' Science 236280–285 (1987).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. B. L. Cohen, ''Criteria for Technology Acceptability,'' Risk Anal.51–2 (1985a).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. K. S. Shrader-Frechette, Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms(Berkeley, University of California, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. B. Thompson and W. R. Dean, ''Competing Conceptions of Risk,'' Risk: Health, Safety Environ.7361–384 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  20. M. A. E. Steger and S. L. Witt, ''Gender Differences in Environmental Orientations: A Comparison of Publics and Activists in Canada and the U.S,'' West.Polit.Quart.42627–649 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  21. T. L. Baumer, ''Research on Fear of Crime in the United States,'' Victimology 3254–264 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. Riger, M. T. Gordon, and R. LeBailly, ''Women's Fear of Crime: From Blaming to Restricting the Victim,'' Victimology 3274–284 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  23. C. Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development(Cambridge, MA, Harvard University, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  24. C. Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution(New York, Harper & Row, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. Alper, ''The Pipeline is Leaking Women All the Way Along,'' Science 260409–411 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. Barke, H. Jenkins-Smith, and P. Slovic, ''Risk Perceptions of Men and Women Scientists,'' Social Sci.Quart.78(1), 167–176 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  27. P. Slovic, T. Malmfors, C. K. Mertz, N. Neil, and I. F. H. Purchase, ''Evaluating Chemical Risks: Results of a Survey of the British Toxicology Society,'' Hum.Exp.Toxicol.16289–304 (1997).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. J. Flynn, P. Slovic, and C. K. Mertz, ''Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks,'' Risk Anal.14(6), 1101–1108 (1994).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. D. M. Buss, K. H. Craik, and K. M. Dake, ''Contemporary Worldviews and Perception of the Technological System,'' in Risk Evaluation and ManagementV. T. Covello, J. Menkes, and J. L. Mumpower (eds.) (New York, Plenum, 1986), pp. 93–130.

    Google Scholar 

  30. K. Dake, ''Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk: An Analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases,'' J.Cross-Cult.Psychol.2261–82 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. M. Jasper, Nuclear Politics: Energy and the State in the United States, Sweden, and France(Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  32. K. Dake, ''Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk,'' J.Social Issues 4821–27 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  33. H. C. Jenkins-Smith, Nuclear Imagery and Regional Stigma: Testing Hypotheses of Image Acquisition and Valuation Regarding Nevada.Technical report Institute for Public Policy, University of New Mexico, (Albuquerque, NM, 1993).

  34. E. Peters and P. Slovic, ''The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power,'' J.Appl.Social Psychol.261427–1453 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  35. P. Slovic and E. Peters, ''The Importance of Worldviews in Risk Perception,'' Risk Dec.Policy 3(2), 165–170 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  36. A. S. Alhakami and P. Slovic, ''A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit,'' Risk Anal.14(6), 1085–1096 (1994).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. M. L. Finucane, A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S. M. Johnson, ''The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits.'' J.Behav.Decision Making(in press).

  38. P. Slovic, J. Flynn, and M. Layman, ''Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste,'' Science 2541603–1607 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  39. P. Slovic, M. Layman, N. Kraus, J. Flynn, J. Chalmers, and G. Gesell, ''Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada,'' Risk Anal.11683–696 (1991).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. N. N. Kraus, T. Malmfors, and P. Slovic, ''Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks,'' Risk Anal.12215–232 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  41. P. Slovic, ''Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield,'' in Environment, Ethics, and BehaviorM. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, and K. A. Wade-Benzoni (eds.) (San Francisco, New Lexington, 1997), pp. 277–313.

    Google Scholar 

  42. P. Slovic, ''Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy,'' Risk Anal.13675–682 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  43. J. Fessenden-Raden, J. M. Fitchen, and J. S. Heath, ''Providing Risk Information in Communities: Factors Influencing What is Heard and Accepted,'' Sci.Technol.Hum.Values 1294–101 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  44. G. Koren and N. Klein, ''Bias Against Negative Studies in Newspaper Reports of Medical Research,'' J.Am.Med.Assoc.2661824–1826 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  45. J. Lichtenberg and D. MacLean, ''Is Good News No News?'' Geneva Papers Risk Ins.17362–365 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  46. D. Fenton, ''How a PR Firm Executed the Alar Scare,'' Wall Street J.A22(October 3, 1989).

  47. D. MacGregor, P. Slovic, and M. G. Morgan, ''Perception of Risks from Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk-Communication Approach,'' Risk Anal.14(5), 815–828 (1994).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. M. G. Morgan, P. Slovic, I. Nair, D. Geisler, D. MacGregor, B. Fischhoff, D. Lincoln, and K. Florig, ''Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception,'' Risk Anal.5139–149 (1985).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. S. Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation(Cambridge, MA, Harvard University, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  50. U.S. Senate, The Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995.Dole/Johnson discussion draft of S. 5343 (Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  51. B. Fischhoff, S. Watson, and C. Hope, ''Defining Risk,'' Policy Sciences 17123–139 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  52. M. R. English, Siting Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities: The Public Policy Dilemma(New York, Quorum, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  53. H. Kunreuther, K. Fitzgerald, and T. D. Aarts, ''Siting Noxious Facilities: A Test of the Facility Siting Credo,'' Risk Anal.13301–318 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  54. National Research Council. Committee on Risk Characterization, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in aDemocratic SocietyP. C. Stern and H. V. Fineberg (eds.) (Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  55. O. Renn, T. Webler, and B. B. Johnson, ''Public Participation in Hazard Management: The Use of Citizen Panels in the U.S.,'' Risk-Issues Health Safety 2(3), 197–226 (Summer, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  56. O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann, Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation(Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97401

    Paul Slovic

Authors
  1. Paul Slovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Slovic, P. Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield. Risk Anal 19, 689–701 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007041821623

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007041821623

Search

Navigation