TY - JOUR
T1 - The influence of information delivery on risk ranking by lay people
AU - Gutiérrez, Virna Vaneza
AU - Cifuentes, Luis Abdón
AU - Bronfman, Nicolás C.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Chilean Commission on Science and Technology, who funded this work through Fondecyt Project number 1020501. We thank the referees for their comments, and the participants of a session at SRA 2004 and SRE-E 2005, where previous versions of this work were presented. We specially thank Dr. Rómulo Chumacero for his advice on statistical methods. Finally we thank the residents of Pudahuel, who kindly participated in the exercise. Any remaining errors are our sole responsibility.
PY - 2006/9/1
Y1 - 2006/9/1
N2 - An experiment was conducted in a real environment to test how information delivery affects risk ranking. Another aim was to propose the best format for delivering information. Different people received different types of information about risks in a risk ranking exercise: Group 1 received a descriptive paragraph about the hazards (Format 1); Group 2 added a table with specific information on risk attributes (Format 2); Group 3 added information on the steps taken locally to mitigate the risks (Format 3), and Group 4 received a data table without identifying the hazard (Format 4). Agreement among subjects' rankings within a group and from group to group was used to measure the potential impact of information delivery. Average pair-wise Spearman correlation was used to compare the level of agreement within each group. Results showed greater consensus in the group using Format 4 than in Formats 1, 2, and 3, with the only significant difference between Format 4 and each one of the others. The results show that the amount of information, and the way it is delivered, may affect how lay people rank risks, but the differences are not statistically significant.
AB - An experiment was conducted in a real environment to test how information delivery affects risk ranking. Another aim was to propose the best format for delivering information. Different people received different types of information about risks in a risk ranking exercise: Group 1 received a descriptive paragraph about the hazards (Format 1); Group 2 added a table with specific information on risk attributes (Format 2); Group 3 added information on the steps taken locally to mitigate the risks (Format 3), and Group 4 received a data table without identifying the hazard (Format 4). Agreement among subjects' rankings within a group and from group to group was used to measure the potential impact of information delivery. Average pair-wise Spearman correlation was used to compare the level of agreement within each group. Results showed greater consensus in the group using Format 4 than in Formats 1, 2, and 3, with the only significant difference between Format 4 and each one of the others. The results show that the amount of information, and the way it is delivered, may affect how lay people rank risks, but the differences are not statistically significant.
KW - Developing country
KW - Risk communication
KW - Risk ranking
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749348513&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13669870600717525
DO - 10.1080/13669870600717525
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:33749348513
SN - 1366-9877
VL - 9
SP - 641
EP - 655
JO - Journal of Risk Research
JF - Journal of Risk Research
IS - 6
ER -