Events that provoke positive affect are perceived as more beneficial and safe, while events that are followed by negative affect are perceived as more risky

The available literature provides several explanations for the observed differences in perceived risk related to different types of hazards. The first explanation comes from the “affect heuristic” model of risk perception proposed by Finucane and colleagues (2000). These authors suggested that people tend to judge events as “good” or “bad” automatically and that the affect linked with this judgment influences the level of perceived risk (Finucane et al., 2000). Events that provoke positive affect are perceived as more beneficial and safe, while events that are followed by negative affect are perceived as more risky (Finucane et al., 2000). According to this model, natural hazards should be perceived as less risky than man-made hazards due to the argument that nature itself is often perceived as good and associated with positive affect (Rozin, 2005; Rudski et al., 2011).

Note: See source document for full reference.

Cultural Factors: Norms/values, Worldviews, Attitudes toward environmental issues

Hazards: Natural hazards, Man-made non-intentional hazards or emergency situations, Man-made intentional hazards

Disaster Phases: Prevention

Types of Actors Concerned: Non-active citizens

Recommendations:

• Develop risk assessments methodologies, which consider cultural factors, the manner in which people cognitively process information and which employ a gender perspective