Comparative Optimism: Relative Risk Perception and Behavioral Response to Lead Exposure
Despite their true exposure, individuals with Comparative Optimism consider themselves less prone to the adverse health effects of pollution. Since individuals’ response to a given environmental risk is affected by their appraisal of the risk, those with Comparative Optimism may be less likely to engage in prescribed behaviors or to do so at the urgency required of the given risk. Such limited or delayed response can amplify the risk instead of reducing it. Thus, there is a need to understand if Comparative Optimism applies to pollutants with irreversible adverse health effects as it would impose a higher burden. There is also a need to know which segments of the population are prone to Comparative Optimism and how it manifests in terms of activities that can enhance exposure. Doing so will allow public health professionals address gaps in risk communication and management efforts and help improve environmental health outcomes. Using survey data, we assess the presence, behavioral and socioeconomic predictors, and implications of Comparative Optimism for communicating and managing lead exposure risk in an urban setting. Our results indicate that a large share of the population has Comparative Optimism for lead exposure, despite living in a city that has a relatively higher lead poisoning burden. We also found that ethnicity, income, length of stay at residence, among others, predict Comparative Optimism, suggesting that Comparative Optimism may predict elevated blood lead level.
Despite their city’s high lead poisoning burden, many underrate their relative risk.
Underrating relative risk associates with exposure-enhancing activities.
Profiling such individuals could help in targeted risk communication and management.
Risk communication efforts should include exposure levels of a reference group.
KeywordsLead exposure Risk perception Behavioral response Risk communication and management Outreach
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Armor, DA, & Taylor, SE (2002) When predictions fail: The dilemma of unrealistic optimism. In Gilovich T, Griffin D, & Kahneman D (eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 334–347). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, US. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.021
- Hoorens V, Desrichard O (2003) Self-other asymmetries: three wonders in” hot” social cognition and three questions about them. Psychol Belg 42(1/2):3–21Google Scholar
- Horlick-Jones T, Walls J, Rowe G, Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, O'Riordan T (2004). A deliberative future? Anindependent evaluation of the GM Nation? Public Debate about the possible commercialisation of transgenic crops in the UK, 2003 (Understanding Risk Working Paper 04-02). Norwich: Centre for Environmental Risk, pp 1–182Google Scholar
- New Jersey Department of Health (2014) Childhood lead poisoning in New Jersey, Annual Report for State Fiscal Year 2014. Trenton, New Jersey. http://www.state.nj.us/health/fhs/documents/childhoodlead2014.pdf
- O’Sullivan OP (2015) The neural basis of always looking on the bright side. Dialogues in philosophy. Ment Neuro Sci 8(1):11–15Google Scholar
- Oltra C, Sala R (2014) A review of the social research on public perception and engagement practices in urban air pollution. No. CIEMAT--1317. Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas (CIEMAT), 2014Google Scholar
- Prescott-Clarke P (1982) Public a Centers for Disease Control and Preventionttitudes towards industrial, work-related and other risks. 14(15), United KingdomGoogle Scholar
- Radcliffe NM, Klein WMP (2002) “Dispositional, unrealistic, and comparative optimism: differential relations with the knowledge and processing of risk information and beliefs about personal risk”. Personal Social Psychol Bull 28(6):836–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schwartz J (2004) Air pollution and children’s health. Pediatrics 113(Supplement 3):1037–1043Google Scholar
- Shepperd JA, Carroll P, Grace J, Terry M (2002) “Exploring the causes of comparative optimism” (PDF). Psychol Belg 42:65–98. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.507.9932Google Scholar
- Slovic PE (2000) The perception of risk (Earthscan Risk and Society Series). Earthscan publicationsGoogle Scholar
- Wester-Herber M (2004) Talking to me?: Risk communication to a diverse public. Diss. Örebro universitetsbibliotekGoogle Scholar