The influence of causal structure on people's reactions to environmental risks.

Environmental risks are often caused by human behaviour. Influencing this behaviour is important to help solve and prevent environmental risks. A motive for behaviour in a situation is the evaluation of the risk of that situation. In this research we studied one of the factors that influences people’s evaluation of risks: the causal structure of risks. The causal structure of a risk is the specific combination of a risk’s cause and victim. Causal structure has an influence on risk evaluation, the perceived seriousness of a risk, the emotional response to a risk, and on the action tendencies because of a risk. Since the aim of our research was to find ways to change human risk-taking behaviour, the latter are especially important, because some action tendencies lead to problem solving or problem preventing behavioural reactions, and others do not. Risk perception, emotional responses to risks and action tendencies because of risks, do not occur independently of each other in the risk evaluation process. Instead, it is proposed in literature that risk evaluation can follow multiple ‘evaluative pathways’ from evaluations to emotions to action tendencies. A distinction is made between the pathway of ethical evaluations leading to ethical emotions and aggression action tendencies, and the pathway of consequentialist evaluations leading to consequence-based emotions and help action tendencies. An additional evaluation pathway that we proposed is that of ‘lethargic’ emotions leading to escape action tendencies. In this study we tried to answer two main research questions: “What is the influence of causal structure on the perceived seriousness of an environmental risk, on the emotional responses to this risk, and on the resulting action tendencies?” and “What are the (mutual) relationships between the risk evaluation process, emotional responses, and action tendencies?” To answer these questions, a questionnaire was designed in which scenarios of environmental risks with different causal structures were described. The cause and/or the victim in the causal structure of the risk could be the person that read the scenario him/herself (the 1st person), identifiable human(s), unidentifiable humans, and nature. Participants gave ratings on the seriousness of the scenarios they read, on different categories of emotions, and on different categories of action tendencies. The different emotion categories were self-focused ethical emotions, other-focused ethical emotions, consequence-based emotions, and lethargic emotions. The different categories of action tendencies were help action tendencies, aggression action tendencies, and escape action tendencies. Based on the results of a factor analyses, a distinction was made between indifference and two other lethargic emotions. Causal structure was found to have an influence on most dependent variables. The victim of the risk influenced perceived seriousness, other-focused ethical emotions, consequence-based emotions, lethargic emotions, aggression action tendencies, and escape action tendencies. Perceived seriousness was relatively high if the victim was the 1st person, and low if the victim was nature. Other-focused ethical emotions were relatively high if victim was 1st person, and relatively low if the victim was nature. Consequence-based emotions were relatively high if the victim was the 1st person, and relatively low if the victim was nature. Lethargic emotions were relatively high if the victim was the 1st person, and relatively low if the victim was nature. The cause of the risk influenced self-focused ethical emotions, other-focused ethical emotions, help action tendencies, and escape action tendencies. Intensities of self-focused ethical emotions were relatively high if the cause was the 1st person. Intensities of other-focused ethical emotions were relatively low if the cause was natural. An identifiable or unidentifiable human cause led to relatively high intensities of other-focused ethical emotions. From the correlation analysis became clear that almost all dependent variables, apart from a few exceptions, correlated with each other. Most of these correlations were positive. However, indifference and escape action tendencies correlated negatively with all other dependent variables, and they correlated positively with each other. The correlation analysis did not provide evidence for the supposed evaluation pathways, with a possible exception of the emotion indifference leading to escape action tendencies. The findings of this study have implications for risk communication and policy interventions aimed at modification of risk-taking behaviour. Risks with a 1st person cause or victim are judged as more serious and evoke more emotions and action tendencies than other risks. Risks with natural causes or victims are not judged as serious and evoke mostly indifference and escape action tendencies. Thus, emphasizing human involvement in environmental risks is very important to evoke problem responding behaviour. This study also shows that people consider a risk is (very) serious if it is mentioned that they themselves are the (potential) victims of that risk. However, people are more inclined to really do something about a risk themselves, if it is emphasized that they themselves are (part of) the cause of that risk.