By Doug Pinkham
Public Affairs Council President
June 23, 2010
Life is full of risk. Today's headlines scream about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, high unemployment, flooding in Brazil and wildfires in Arizona. We also face threats of terrorism, economic collapse, product recalls, pandemics, earthquakes and hurricanes. But why does the public become panicked or outraged about some threats while ignoring others?
It all has to do with risk perception: there are psychological patterns governing what humans decide to be afraid of. Communications professionals working for chemical and nuclear energy companies, along with public health officials, have developed a sophisticated knowledge of these patterns. That's because they have to deal with questions of risk and safety on a daily basis.
Yet politicians and business executives often don't understand why the public seems to assess risk in unpredictable ways. Why aren't people more upset about climate change? Why do they fear illegal immigrants? Why do we need so many regulations governing the flammability of children's pajamas? And - just in time for summer - why do beach-goers worry so much about shark attacks when they are 15 times more likely to die from a falling coconut?
In a book with the aptly named title "Risk," David Ropeik and George Gray of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis examine this phenomenon and reach some fascinating conclusions. "Essentially," the authors write, "any given risk has a set of identifiable characteristics that help predict what emotional responses that risk will trigger."
Here are some major risk perception factors from the book, with up-to-date examples:
"New" risk versus "old" risk. The H1N1 virus, which became the latest strain of influenza last year, made people afraid because we had never seen it before.
Man-made risk versus natural risk. Many people fear nuclear power despite its excellent safety record; yet few worry about radon gas in the home, which is estimated to kill more than 20,000 people a year.
Imposed risk versus chosen risk. Hearing that an oil refinery is being built in your town might make you outraged; moving into a town with an oil refinery already in place is your choice.
No-benefit risk versus risk with trade-offs. Despite San Francisco's propensity for earthquakes, it's still a popular place to live.
Gruesome risk versus regular risk. Death by shark bite says it all.
Uncontrolled risk versus controlled risk. You're more likely to die in a traffic accident than a plane crash, but flying in a plane means you must depend on the pilot's skills.
Distrustful risk versus trustworthy risk. People are more frightened of risks that come from people, companies or governments they distrust.
High-awareness risk versus low-awareness risk. After 9/11, concern about terrorism was acute because awareness was so high. Meanwhile, fear of street crime and climate change was temporarily low because awareness had declined.
Risk with uncertainty versus risk with certainty. New technologies, from genetically modified foods to advancements in stem cell research, often face opposition because the public doesn't understand them.
Risks to children versus risks to adults. A product posing a danger to children will always draw more attention than one posing a danger to adults.
Personalized risk versus generalized risk. After 9/11, fear of future attacks was much higher in cities such as New York and Washington, D.C., than it was in Des Moines or St. Louis.
Now, with these factors in mind, let's look at the public's reaction to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The spill, which has become the largest environmental disaster in the nation's history, creates risk that is man-made and imposed on a region of the country that has already been hit by hurricanes and a poor economy. People living on the Gulf Coast have to rely on a large corporation and the federal government - two institutions that the public tends not to trust - to solve the problem. In addition, the average person doesn't understand deepwater drilling, "top hat" containment domes, or how a relief well works. Clearly, this is a high-risk situation with a high level of public fear.
On the other hand there are tradeoffs to consider. Despite the dangers and uncertainties, the nation needs offshore drilling to provide jobs on the Gulf Coast and to take full advantage of oil and natural gas reserves. And for those Americans living far away from Louisiana and Alabama, the risk is more generalized than personalized. While support for offshore drilling has declined, an ABC/Washington Post poll shows many people have mixed feelings on the subject. When asked if the spill is an isolated incident or if it reflects a broader problem with offshore drilling, only a slight majority said it reflects a broader problem.
During the next few months, as the spill is either contained or worsens, these opinions will likely change. Perhaps because of the severity of the damage and the uncertainty of the risk, more Americans will call for a ban on offshore drilling and a faster transition to renewable fuels. Or perhaps the risk won't seem so new after awhile, and higher gasoline prices during the summer will inspire people to fight laws that might reduce supplies.
This is why it has been difficult for President Obama to channel concern about the spill into a campaign to reduce the nation's dependence on oil. And it's probably why his handling of the spill has received such tepid reviews. Americans are fearful and infuriated, but also conflicted about what they want the president to accomplish. At this point, they are asking themselves, "Which is riskier? Doing something, or doing nothing"?
Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.
Doug's blog will be on a two-week hiatus, but will return July 14.
