Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield
Loading...
Date
1999
Authors
Slovic, Paul
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views,
controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new
perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept ‘‘risk’’ and the
inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This
paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently
subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological,
social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions,
remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls
the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined
one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the
best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other
contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk
is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they
are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk
are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The
same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies,
and values; so are scientists’ views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their
expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust,
and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach—one
that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk
decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance
and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance
of the resulting decisions.
Description
47 pages
Keywords
Risk perception, Risk, Affect, Risk assessment, Risk communication, Risk management
Citation
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701. Originally published in M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and behavior (pp. 277-313). San Francisco: New Lexington, 1997. Revised version in The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1997, pp. 59-99.