Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

  • 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

  • Bae H (2012) Reducing environmental risks by information disclosure: evidence in residential lead paint disclosure rule. J Policy Anal Manag 31(2):404–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff K (2004) Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ Int 30(6):827–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 105:267–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1561–1574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown RW, Longoria T (2010) Multiple risk factors for lead poisoning in hispanic sub-populations: a review. J Immigr Minor Health 12(5):715–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulson NE (1999) Why are Hispanic-and Asian-American homeownership rates so low?: immigration and other factors. J Urban Econ 45(2):209–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dapul H, Laraque D (2014) Lead poisoning in children. Adv Pediatr 61(1):313–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):2043–2054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):528–537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge Y, Murray P, Hendershot W (2000) Trace metal speciation and bioavailability in urban soils. Environ Pollut 107(1):137–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gouveia SusO, Clarke V (2001) “Optimistic bias for negative and positive events”. Health Educ 101(5):228–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654280110402080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 184:132–142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):319–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoorens V, Desrichard O (2003) Self-other asymmetries: three wonders in” hot” social cognition and three questions about them. Psychol Belg 42(1/2):3–21

    Google 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 1–182

  • 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):163–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):A599

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BB (2003) Communicating air quality information: experimental evaluation of alternative formats. Risk Anal 23(1):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J Social Issues 48(4):161–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:93

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler R (2013) Urban gardening: managing the risks of contaminated soil. Environ Health Perspect 121(11-12):326–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korfmacher KS, Ayoob M, Morley R (2012) Rochester’s lead law: evaluation of a local environmental health policy innovation. Environ Health Persp 120:309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lanphear BP, Byrd RS, Auinger P, Schaffer SJ (1998) Community characteristics associated with elevated blood lead levels in children. Pediatrics 101(2):264–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levin R et al. (2008) Lead exposures in US children, 2008: implications for prevention. Environ Health Perspect 116(10):1285–1293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):417–435

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe EB (1979) Age and sensitivity to lead toxicity: a review. Environ Health Perspect 29:29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna FP, Warburton DM, Winwood M (1993) Exploring the limits of optimism: the case of smokers’ decision making. Br J Psychol 84(3):389–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 112:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):448

    Article  Google 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):11–15

    Google 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), 2014

  • 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):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prescott-Clarke P (1982) Public a Centers for Disease Control and Preventionttitudes towards industrial, work-related and other risks. 14(15), United Kingdom

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz J (2004) Air pollution and children’s health. Pediatrics 113(Supplement 3):1037–1043

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd JA, Carroll P, Grace J, Terry M (2002) “Exploring the causes of comparative optimism” (PDF). Psychol Belg 42:65–98. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.507.9932

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic PE (2000) The perception of risk (Earthscan Risk and Society Series). Earthscan publications

  • Weinstein ND (1980) Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Personal Social Psychol 39(5):806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wester-Herber M (2004) Talking to me?: Risk communication to a diverse public. Diss. Örebro universitetsbibliotek

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth and Environmental Studies, Montclair State University, 1 Normal Avenue, CL 418, Montclair, NJ, 07043, USA

    Bernabas Wolde, Pankaj Lal & Alessandra Rossi

  2. CDM Smith, 110 Fieldcrest Avenue, PO 8, Floor 6, Edison, NJ, 08837, USA

    Melissa Harclerode

Authors
  1. Bernabas Wolde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pankaj Lal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Melissa Harclerode
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandra Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernabas Wolde.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wolde, B., Lal, P., Harclerode, M. et al. Comparative Optimism: Relative Risk Perception and Behavioral Response to Lead Exposure. Environmental Management 63, 691–701 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01148-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01148-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation