Percepción del Riesgo Risk perception is not a matter of chance nor happens randomly There are elements that determine how we perceive risk

El dilema fundamental de la comunicación de riesgos para la salud Los riesgos que matan a las personas y los riesgos que los alarman son completamente diferentes Covello y Sandman, 2001. “There is virtually no correlation between the ranking of hazards according to statistics on expected annual mortality and the ranking of the same hazards by how upsetting they are. There are many risks that make people furious even though they cause little harm---and others that kill many, but without making anybody mad.”

Teoría de la psicología humanista Escala de jerarquía de Maslow Necesidades fisiológicas Necesidades de seguridad Necesidades psicológicas Necesidades de autoestima Necesidades de autorrealización How does the level where we stand on the TPH affect us perceiving risk? Is a person trying to meet hers/his physiological (food) or safety (shelter) needs going to perceive the same risk than us? (perhaps at the self-esteem or self- actualization level)

Riesgo = Peligro + Ira (valores) Covello y Sandman, 2001. An individual’s perception or assessment of risk is based on a combination of hazard and outrage factors. When present, outrange often takes on strong emotional overtones. It predisposes and individual to react emotionally. Out rage also tends to distort perceived hazard.

Para entender la percepción del riesgo es necesario responder a las siguientes preguntas:   ¿De qué tipo de individuos se compone el público? ¿Qué determinan las percepciones de riesgo y sus actitudes? ¿Cómo se manifiestan las percepciones de riesgo y sus actitudes? ¿Qué se puede hacer para aminorar las actitudes respecto al riesgo?

Elementos que influyen en la preocupación de un riesgo por parte de la comunidad   ¿Qué tan verdadero es el riesgo? ¿Cuál es el riesgo absoluto? ¿Está usted realmente en riesgo? ¿Qué se obtiene a cambio del riesgo? ¿Puede usted hacer algo respecto al riesgo?

Cualidades del peligro que influyen en la percepción del riesgo Riesgos aceptables: Voluntarios Bajo su control Claramente benéficos Distribuidos justamente Naturales Estadísticos De una fuente de confianza Familiares Que afectan a los adultos Fischhoff, et al., 1981 Riesgos no aceptables: Involuntarios Controlados por otros De poco o nulo beneficio Distribuidos injustamente Causados por el hombre Catastróficos De fuentes desconocidas Exóticos Que afectan a los niños

Riesgo voluntario Riesgo involuntario These choices can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary: risks associated with the work we do, our commute to work or the place where we live (I.e. flood plains), type of foods we chose to eat and exercising, etc. Involuntary: weather related risks (tornado, hurricane, earthquake or man-made disasters)

Factores de ira y percepción del riesgo Comprensión Incertidumbre Efectos tardíos Efectos en niños Efectos en generaciones futuras Pavor Understanding: poorly understood risks (such as the health effects of long-term exposure to low doses of toxic chemicals) are judged to be greater than risks that are well understood (pedestrian accidents) Uncertainty: risks from activities that are unknown (genetic engineering) are judged to be greater than risks from activities that appear to be relatively well known to science Delayed effects: risks from activities that may have delayed effects (long latency between exposure and health effects) are judged greater than risks from activities viewed as having immediate effects (poisonings) Effects on children: Effects on future generations: Dread: risks from activities that evoke fear, terror, or anxiety (cancer, AIDS) are judged to be greater than risks from activities that do not arouse such feelings (common cold, household accidents)

Factores de ira y percepción del riesgo (Cont.) Confianza Atención de los medios de comunicación Reversibilidad Naturaleza ética y moral Origen humano versus natural Covello y Sandman, 2001. Trust: risks from activities associated with individuals or insitutions lacking trust and credibility are judged to be greater than risks from activities associated with those viewed as trustworthy Media attention: risks from activities that receive considerable media coverage (tires on Ford Explores) are judged greater than risks that receive little media attention (on-the-job accidents) Reversibility: risks from activities considered to have potentially irreversible adverse effects (birth defects from exposure to toxic substances) are judged to be greater than risks from activities considered to have reversible adverse effects (sports injuries) Ethical/moral nature: risks from activities believed to be ethically objectionable or morally wrong (foisting pollution on an economically distressed community) are judged to be greater than risks from ethically neutral activities (side effects of medication) Human vs natural origin: risks generated by human action are judged to be gereater than risks caused by nature or “Acts of God” (radon, hurricanes)

La estimación del riesgo está influida por el sesgo de la percepción Sesgo de disponibilidad: Frecuencia con que se recuerdan los eventos Sesgo de anclaje: Estimaciones influidas por el evento Sesgo optimista: Creencia de correr un menor riesgo que la población general (a mí eso no me va a pasar)

Fuente: Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Dimensiones de confianza Compromiso Competencia Cuidado Apertura y honestidad

¿Qué determina la percepción del riesgo? Nivel individual en la escala de jerarquía de Maslow Valores individuales y sociales Cultura Experiencias

¿Qué determina la percepción del riesgo? (Cont.) Nivel de educación Factores de ira ¿Quién es y cómo está afectado? Nivel de control sobre el evento

realidad Percepción es Sandman has stated that for every individual their perception is their REALITY. Isn’t it the same for us? What we perceive to be a risk is our reality. The Three Mile Island release in 1979 is a good example. The release of 15 curies of radiation that took place is similar to what anyone of us in the US receives in a week’s time from background radiation. However, the lack of appropriate communication to the population and mismanagement of the event might have triggered the high levels of stress among the residents of the area. They perceived it to be a risk. For them it was a risk.