Study 1.4

Question

The aim of the fourth study was to elicit causal scenarios on a more differentiated level. Furthermore, we seeked to replicate the different ascription patterns for causes and consequences found in study three.

Method

One hundred and twenty subjects participated in this study. The same 25 environmental topics as those used in study three were presented to subjects. Subjects were asked to construct a causal structure of these 25 topics. Each topic was written on a magnet, so that subjects could arrange the topics on a magnetic board. Each subject began with one of four topics that served as starting points: traffic, CO2-emission, greenhouse effect, or sea level rise. The four starting points correspond to the causal levels human activities, pollution / emission, environmental changes, and negative consequences, respectively. First, subjects selected the most important causes of the starting point and its most important consequences. They then completed the causal structure and indicated a causal relationship between two topics by drawing an arrow. Subjects rated the strength of each causal relationship on three scales. Finally, subjects completed a questionnaire in which they evaluated the environmental topics on various psychometric scales.

Results

Data collection for this study has not been completed, yet. We plan to test different models of the risk appraisal process by relating risk evaluation to various structural indices for the causal scenarios, such as the centrality of a component or length of causal chains.

Prospect:

During the second funding period, we aim to investigate two other determinants of risk judgments besides common sense causal knowledge: ethical evaluations and affective reactions. We assume that the focus of risk evaluation can be on one of two aspects: a) on an evaluation of loss potential, which is based on causal knowledge, or b) on ethical considerations. We assume that both, potential loss and violation of ethical principles arouse emotional reactions, but that these two judgmental aspects are associated with different specific emotions. These assumptions will be tested in a series of studies, as well as the hypotheses that the relative salience of the two judgmental aspects depends on the type of risk that is evaluated and on the evaluator`s social role. One aspect of causal knowledge that will be focused upon is the time perspective of potential loss.