Review of the following book: ELAINE VAUGHAN, SOME FACTORS INFLUENCING THE NONEXPERT\u27S PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL Risks. (Garland Pub. Co. 1990) [249 pp.] Abstract, appendices, bibliography, figures, tables. LC: 90-13855, ISBN: 0-8420-0422-1. [Cloth $59.00. 136 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016.

Field, Juanita V.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)Volume 3Number 2 RISK: Issues in Health & Safety Article 12March 1992Book ReviewJuanita V. FieldFollow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/riskPart of the Psychology CommonsThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – School of Law at University of New HampshireScholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002) by an authorized editor of University ofNew Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact ellen.phillips@law.unh.edu.Repository CitationJuanita V. Field, Book Review, 3 RISK 187 (1992).Book ReviewErratumThe citation for this review is 3 RISK 173 (1992) in most commercial databases.This book review is available in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002): https://scholars.unh.edu/risk/vol3/iss2/12Book Reviews 187ELAINE VAUGHAN, SOME FACTORS INFLUENCING THENONEXPERT'S PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF ENVIR-ONMENTAL RISKS. (Garland Pub. Co. 1990) [249 pp.] Abstract,appendices, bibliography, figures, tables. LC: 90-13855, ISBN: 0-8420-0422-1.[Cloth $59.00. 136 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016.]Experts attempt to establish acceptable levels of risk, but the publicmay not agree. In the cases of, e.g., seat belts and condoms, nonexpertdecisions ultimately control. Even in cases such as disposal of toxicwaste, nonexpert decisions may control, and the need for betterunderstanding of factors influencing nonexpert perceptions of risk istherefore compelling.Vaughn begins, at 1, by noting that "Most studies [of thosefactors]... have relied on survey data and correlational analyses... thatpreclude the determination of interactive effects, effects that couldexplain apparent 'inconsistencies' that have been documented." Shetherefore set out to empirically test the effects of six variables: "(1)familiarity with the terms used to describe a hazard, (2) environmentalpersistence of a chemical, (3) personal relevance of data used to evaluatecancer-causing potential, (4) personal relevance of possible adverseconsequences, (5) perceived control over exposure and (6) vividness ofthe exposure pathway."In the first 50 pages, Vaughn extensively reviews the literaturedealing with perception of risk. A large number of variables may haverelevance to this topic, and she reviews many of them, including:personal relevance, reversibility of consequences, characteristics ofexposure, familiarity, personal control, vividness, decision making forself and others, perception of hazard affecting self and others, andsituational influences on perception of control.Vaughan then describes three studies she designed and executed todetermine whether the six experimenter-controlled variables listed abovehave an effect upon judgments by nonexperts of perceived risk,3 RISK -Issues in Health & Safety 173 [Spring 19921acceptability of risk, subjective probability of negative outcomes due toexposure to a substance and perceived severity of consequences. Hermethodology involved fairly standard procedures: presentation to thesubjects of manipulated descriptions of chemical substances (chemicalhazard profiles) with questionnaires and rating scales to measureperceptions of risk.In Chapter 5, Vaughn summarizes her findings, relates them toprevious research, and briefly addresses methodological considerationsand implications for further research. Those not trained in the socialsciences will find this chapter of most interest, but the discussion islikely to be more useful to professionals doing the same kind ofresearch. The interactions among the variables Vaughan studied arecomplicated - so complicated, in fact, that she fails consistently to callthe variables by the same names. Also, insofar as she deals withinformation outside her primary area of expertise (psychology), thediscussion is sometimes confusing.How much aid this work will provide - particularly to thoseoutside of psychology - is uncertain, but Vaughn is to be encouraged.Overall, this work represents an ambitious effort to serve a laudablegoal. For experts to gain acceptance of their risk assessments, they mustidentify relevant parameters and couch their presentations in effectivelanguage and forms that nonexperts can deal with.Perhaps understanding will improve with further refinement anddefinition of variables of the type that Vaughn has studied. Yet, giventhe complexity she demonstrates, examination of variables such ascognitive biases and heuristics may prove more fruitful in the long run.Juanita V. Fieldtt Professor Field teaches Psychology at Plymouth State College.

Book Review

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&amp;context=risk

Book Review

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository