Effect of Causal Structure on the Evaluation of Environmental Risks. Dr. Gisela Boehm, PH Ludwigsburg, Department of Educational Psychology and Sociology, Reuteallee 46, D-71634 Ludwigsburg (visiting address), P.O. Box 220, D-71602 Ludwigsburg (postal address), Germany, telephone +49 141 140 382, fax +49 141 140 434, e-mail Boehm_Gisela@PH-Ludwigsburg.de
The present paper will be concerned with environmental risk evaluation. Two evaluative aspects of environmental risks are distinguished: a) potential losses that are evaluated with respect to personal goals, and b) ethical considerations. Following cognitive emotion theories, it is assumed that these two evaluative aspects arouse different specific emotions. Thus, two types of emotion are distinguished: loss-based emotions, e.g., worry and fear, and moral-based emotions, such as guilt and anger. Furthermore, it is assumed that the relative salience of these two judgmental aspects differs depending on the causal structure of the risk that is evaluated. It is hypothesized that ethical evaluation dominates if the environmental risk is man-made rather than natural, and that loss-based evaluation is stronger for threats to humans than for those to nature. In an experiment, scenario information about environmental risks was provided and the effects of a) type of causality (man-made vs. natural cause; single cause vs. cumulative causation), b) type of potential loss (harmful consequences for self, other people, or nature) and c) geographical distance (close vs. distant) on ethical evaluation, evaluation of consequences, affective reactions, and behavioral tendencies were investigated. Results indicate that a risk's causal structure is related to evaluative focus, emotions, and behavioral tendencies. As hypothesized, it is environmental risks that are caused by humans, and those caused by a single human agent in particular, that are evaluated as morally blameworthy, that arouse moral-based emotions such as anger, and that elicit aggressive behavior tendencies. The implications of these findings for the risk appraisal process are discussed.
Go to . . .
1999 SRA-Europe Table of Contents
1999 SRA-Europe Author Index
Main Abstracts Menu Page
RiskWorld Home Page