Goal
This study has two aims: We examine the two qualitatively different systems by which people process uncertainty information; and we look at the systematic biases in memory for climate events. Most climate forecast communications assume people process information analytically. Yet sharing vicarious experience in group discussions or simulations of forecasts, decisions, and outcomes provides a richer and more representative sample of relevant experience. We investigate whether collective (group level) consideration of the riskiness of climate risks and other health and safety and financial risks leads to increases or decreases in risk perception. We are looking at the different effect of experience (be in single individuals accumulating information about event outcomes and their likelihood over time or groups of individuals pooling their experiences) versus providing scientific description to individuals and groups.

Background
Theoretically, this study is based on Paul Slovic's psychological risk dimensions. Further exploration of where the risks of climate change and climate variability fall in the psychological risk perception space provides guidelines about how to possibly change people's affective reactions or concerns about those risks. It is widely believed that affect is a strong driver of decisions. The emotional impact of the concretization of abstract risks motivates action in ways not provided by an analytic understanding. Personally experiencing the consequences of one's actions and choices, with the usually immediate, positive affective reactions (joy, delight, surprise) that accompany good outcomes and the negative affective correlates (regret, disappointment, anger, sadness) of negative outcomes shape our perception of how advised the taken action was.

Research Questions
Does the effect of providing uncertainty information as statistical summary in the form of a probalistic forecast differ when it is retranslated into concrete (vicarious) experience?

What are respondents' cognitive and affective reactions to climate risks?

What is the role of affect as a driver of decisions to take mitigating action against such risks?

Last Updated: June 1, 2006