Advertisement

Comparative Optimism: Relative Risk Perception and Behavioral Response to Lead Exposure

  • Bernabas WoldeEmail author
  • Pankaj Lal
  • Melissa Harclerode
  • Alessandra Rossi
Article

Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • 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.

Keywords

Lead exposure Risk perception Behavioral response Risk communication and management Outreach 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 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
  2. Bae H (2012) Reducing environmental risks by information disclosure: evidence in residential lead paint disclosure rule. J Policy Anal Manag 31(2):404–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickerstaff K (2004) Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ Int 30(6):827–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breysse J, Anderson J, Dixon S, Galke W, Wilson J (2007) Immediate and one-year post-intervention effectiveness of Maryland’s lead law treatments. Environ Res 105:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody SD, Peck BM, Highfield WE (2004) Examining localized patterns of air quality perception in Texas: a spatial and statistical analysis. Risk Anal 24(6):1561–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown RW, Longoria T (2010) Multiple risk factors for lead poisoning in hispanic sub-populations: a review. J Immigr Minor Health 12(5):715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coulson NE (1999) Why are Hispanic-and Asian-American homeownership rates so low?: immigration and other factors. J Urban Econ 45(2):209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dapul H, Laraque D (2014) Lead poisoning in children. Adv Pediatr 61(1):313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deguen S, Ségala C, Pédrono G, Mesbah M (2012) A new air quality perception scale for global assessment of air pollution health effects. Risk Anal 32(12):2043–2054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Etchevers A, Bretin P, Lecoffre C, Bidondo M-L, Le Strat Y, Glorennec P et al. (2014) Blood lead levels and risk factors in young children in France, 2008–2009. Int J Hyg Environ Health 217(4):528–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. French DP, Hevey D (2008) What do people think about when answering questionnaires to assess unrealistic optimism about skin cancer? A think aloud study. Psychol Health Med 13(1):63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ge Y, Murray P, Hendershot W (2000) Trace metal speciation and bioavailability in urban soils. Environ Pollut 107(1):137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gouveia SusO, Clarke V (2001) “Optimistic bias for negative and positive events”. Health Educ 101(5):228–234.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09654280110402080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harclerode MA, Lal P, Vedwan N, Wolde B, Miller ME (2016) Evaluation of the role of risk perception in stakeholder engagement to prevent lead exposure in an urban setting. J Environ Manag 184:132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helweg-Larsen M, Shepperd JA (2001) “Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature” (PDF). Personal Social Psychol Rev 5(1):74–95.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hom AG, Plaza RM, Palmén R (2011) The framing of risk and implications for policy and governance: the case of EMF. Public Under Sci 20(3):319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Howel D, Moffatt S, Bush J, Dunn CE, Prince H (2003) Public views on the links between air pollution and health in Northeast England. Environ Res 91(3):163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobs DE, Clickner RP, Zhou JY, Viet SM, Marker DA, Rogers JW et al. (2002) The prevalence of lead-based paint hazards in US housing. Environ Health Perspect 110(10):A599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson BB (2003) Communicating air quality information: experimental evaluation of alternative formats. Risk Anal 23(1):91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Social Issues 48(4):161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennedy C, Lordo R, Sucosky MS, Boehm R, Brown MJ (2014) Primary prevention of lead poisoning in children: a cross-sectional study to evaluate state specific lead-based paint risk reduction laws in preventing lead poisoning in children. Environ Health 13:93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kessler R (2013) Urban gardening: managing the risks of contaminated soil. Environ Health Perspect 121(11-12):326–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korfmacher KS, Ayoob M, Morley R (2012) Rochester’s lead law: evaluation of a local environmental health policy innovation. Environ Health Persp 120:309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lanphear BP, Byrd RS, Auinger P, Schaffer SJ (1998) Community characteristics associated with elevated blood lead levels in children. Pediatrics 101(2):264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin R et al. (2008) Lead exposures in US children, 2008: implications for prevention. Environ Health Perspect 116(10):1285–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levin R, Brown MJ, Kashtock ME, Jacobs DE, Whelan EA, Rodman J et al. (2008) Lead exposures in US children, 2008: implications for prevention. Environ Health Perspect 116(10):1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Makri A, Goveia M, Balbus J, Parkin R (2004) Children’s susceptibility to chemicals: a review by developmental stage. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part B 7(6):417–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCabe EB (1979) Age and sensitivity to lead toxicity: a review. Environ Health Perspect 29:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKenna FP, Warburton DM, Winwood M (1993) Exploring the limits of optimism: the case of smokers’ decision making. Br J Psychol 84(3):389–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLaughlin TJ, Humphries Jr O, Nguyen T, Maljanian R, McCormack K (2004) “Getting the lead out” in Hartford, Connecticut: a multifaceted lead-poisoning awareness campaign. Environ Health Persp 112:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moralez LS, Gutierrez P, Escarce JJ (2005) Demographic and socioeconomic factors associated with blood lead levels among Mexican-American children and adolescents in the United States. Public Health Rep 120(4):448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk analysis 8(2):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prescott-Clarke P (1982) Public a Centers for Disease Control and Preventionttitudes towards industrial, work-related and other risks. 14(15), United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Schwartz J (2004) Air pollution and children’s health. Pediatrics 113(Supplement 3):1037–1043Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Slovic PE (2000) The perception of risk (Earthscan Risk and Society Series). Earthscan publicationsGoogle Scholar
  45. Weinstein ND (1980) Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Personal Social Psychol 39(5):806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wester-Herber M (2004) Talking to me?: Risk communication to a diverse public. Diss. Örebro universitetsbibliotekGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernabas Wolde
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pankaj Lal
    • 1
  • Melissa Harclerode
    • 2
  • Alessandra Rossi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Earth and Environmental StudiesMontclair State UniversityMontclairUSA
  2. 2.CDM SmithEdisonUSA

Personalised recommendations