Appendix II: Research Questionnaire
Article Table of Contents
Please answer the following questions based on your impressions from the story you just read. We want to know your impressions from the story.
Please check the response that best gives your impressions of the situation in the story. If you have no opinion, then check “No Opinion.”
For example, in the sample item below, assume that after reading the story your impression was that the story was better than “a little well written,” but not as good as “well written.” Then you would check the response “moderately well written” as shown below in Sl.
Sl. How well written do you think the story is?
- not at all well written
- a little…
- moderately…
- very…
- extremely…
- no opinion
1. What is your impression of how serious this situation is?
- not at all serious
- a little…
- moderately…
- very…
- extremely…
- no opinion
2. How appropriate was DEP’s handling of the PERC spill?
- not at all serious
- a little…
- moderately…
- very…
- extremely…
- no opinion
3. How detailed was the information in the story about the health effects of the PERC spill and the ways people might get exposed?
- not at all serious
- a little…
- moderately…
- very…
- extremely…
- no opinion
4. If you lived in the area, how worried would you be about the risk from the PERC spill?
- not at all worried
- a little…
- moderately…
- very…
- extremely…
- no opinion
5. If you lived in the area, how willing would you be to spend $500 to have your water tested for PERC contamination after the spill?
- not at all willing
- a little…
- moderately…
- very…
- extremely…
- no opinion
6. How important do you consider the risk posed by this situation?
- not at all important risk
- a little…
- moderately…
- very…
- extremely…
- no opinion
For each statement below, please check the response that best indicates how much you agree or disagree.
For example, in the sample item below, if you believed that voters are unconcerned about environmental issues, then you would check the response “agree” as shown below in S2.
S2. Environmental issues are of little concern to the voters.
- very strongly disagree
- strongly disagree
- disagree
- neutral
- agree
- strongly agree
- very strongly agree
1. The public has a right to demand zero risk from industry.
- very strongly disagree
- strongly disagree
- disagree
- neutral
- agree
- strongly agree
- very strongly agree
2. If there was even the slightest amount of asbestos in my home, I would remove it.
- very strongly disagree
- strongly disagree
- disagree
- neutral
- agree
- strongly agree
- very strongly agree
3. I try to avoid all food additives and preservatives.
- very strongly disagree
- strongly disagree
- disagree
- neutral
- agree
- strongly agree
- very strongly agree
4. An industry that pollutes shouldn’t be allowed to stay open, no matter how little pollution it produces.
- very strongly disagree
- strongly disagree
- disagree
- neutral
- agree
- strongly agree
- very strongly agree
To help us describe participants in the study, please tell us:
1. Your sex
- Male
- Female
2. Your age
- 18–22
- 23–27
- 28–32
- 33–37
- 38–42
- 43–47
- 48–52
- 53–57
- 58–62
- Over 62
3. How much school have you completed? (Check one)
- Some grade school
- Finished 2-year college
- Some junior high school
- Finished 4-year college
- Some high school
- Some graduate study
- Finished high school
- Graduate degree
- Some college
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!!
Notes
(Arrow to the left of each reference returns you to the reference location in the document.)
1. Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, Rating the Risks, p. 21 Environment 3, 14–20, and pp. 36–39 (1979); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Unfinished Business: a Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems (1987).
2. The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk: Essays in Risk Selection and Perception. (Branden B. Johnson & Vincent T. Covello, eds. 1987).
3. Brian Wynne, “Sheepfarming After Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information,” Environment, March 1989, pp. 10–15, 33–40.
4. Paul Slovic, Mark Layman & James H. Flynn, “Risk Perception, Trust, and Nuclear Waste–Lessons from Yucca Mountain,” Environment, April 1991, p. 6.
5. Peter M. Sandman & Paul Miller, “Outrage and Technical Detail: The Impact of Agency Behavior on Community Risk Perception,” (Final Report to NJDEPE DSR 1991). Available from ECRP or NJDEPE-DSR.
6. Referred to here as the “outrage” variable. For a more complete report on outrage effects, see Peter M. Sandman, Paul Miller, Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, “Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments,” Ms., 1991.
7. Jon D. Miller, Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review, Daedalus, Spring 1983, p. 29.
8. F. Reed Johnson & Ann Fisher, “Conventional Wisdom on Risk Communication and Evidence from a Field Experiment,” 9 Risk Anal. p. 209 (1989).
9. Allan Mazur, "Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific Controversies,” 31 J. Comm., p. 106 (1981); Allan Mazur, “Nuclear Power, Chemical Hazards, and the Quantity of Reporting," Minerva, Autumn 1990, p. 294.
10. Mass Media And The Environment (David M. Rubin & David P. Sachs, eds. 1973); Peter M.. Sandman et al., “Environmental Risk And The Press,” (1987).
11. David L. Protess et al., “The Impact of Investigative Reporting on Public Opinion and Policymaking: Targeting Toxic Waste,” p. 51 Pub. Opinion Q. 166 (1987); Roger E. Kasperson et al., “Social Amplification of Risk: The Media and Public Response, in High-Level Waste And General Interest” pp. 131–135 (Vol. 1: Waste Management ’89: Waste Processing, Transportation, Storage And Disposal, Technical Programs And Public Education, R.G. Post, ed. 1989).
12. Kandice L. Salomone, “News Content And Public Perceptions of Environmental Risk: Does Technical Risk Information Matter After All?” (Rutgers University, in press 1992).
13. Dorothy Nelkin, “Creation versus Evolution: The California Controversy,” in Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions, p. 213, at 224–25 (Dorothy Nelkin, ed. 1979).
14. See review in Branden B. Johnson, “Public Perceptions and the Public Role in Nuclear and Chemical Waste Facility Siting,” p. 11 Envt’l Mgmt. 571 (1987).
15. Neil D. Weinstein, “Public Perception of Environmental Hazards: Statewide Poll of Environmental Perceptions” (Final Report, N. J. Dept. Envt’l Prot’n, DSR 1987).
16. G. Ray Funkhouser & Nathan Maccoby, “Communicating Specialized Science Information to a Lay Audience,” p. 21 J. Comm. 58 (1971).
17. Judy Shaw & Branden B. Johnson, “A Look Inside: Risk Communication and Public Participation within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,” (N. J. Dept. Envt’l Prot’n, DSR 1990).
18. The stories in Appendix I use the name of the agency at the time of the study: the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
19. Rubin & Sachs and Sandman et al., both supra note 10.
20. See issue no. 5, concerning what technical information to provide.
23. This perception was not measured by the survey instrument.
25. References to questions refer to items in Appendix II, Research Questionnaire.
26. See Table 2 for variables used and results.
28. Whether these findings about media report effects reflect citizen reactions to actual agency statements and behavior was not studied here. However, personal experiences of the lead author and his colleagues in NJDEPE’s Risk Communication Unit suggest that the two are similar, at least for high-outrage situations. In other words, when the agency engages in statements and other behavior seen as inappropriate by citizens, public perceptions of risk are high. This experience also suggests that low-outrage behavior by an agency reduces perceived risk, although the sample of low-outrage behavior is so small that this experience must be taken as suggestive only.
29. Nancy N. Kraus, Thorbjorn Malmfors & Paul Slovic. “Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks” (Decision Research Report, 1990).
30. For example, Slovic et al., supra note 1.
Copyright © 2001 by Branden B. Johnson, Peter M. Sandman, and Paul Miller
Part 1: Introduction, Possible Roles of Technical Information, and Research Design
Part 2: Pilot Studies, Field Study, Discussion, and Conclusion
Part 3: Appendix I: Simulated Stories Used in This Study
Part 4: Appendix II: Research Questionnaire and Notes
