Psychology and risk perception
Paul Slovic at the Laboratory for Cognitive Sciences of Rovereto
Interview by Francesca Menna to Paul Slovic

At the end of March the American psychologist Paul Slovic, founder and president of Decision Research, winner of several international prices, has held two seminars on risk perception at the Cognitive Science Laboratory in Rovereto. We have asked him some questions.

Professor Slovic, what is your study area and where do you work at present?
I am professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon and I am president of Decision Research, which is a private research institute in Eugene, Oregon. I study human judgement and decision making, risk situations, risk assessment, perceived risk and risk communication.

Why is it important to study risk from a psychological point of view?
The study of risk, which is a very important topic, probably originated in Italy a long time ago. We have created the concept of risk to help us think about life's dangers, control them and make decisions. Risk is studied by many types of scientists: engineers, toxicologists, physicians, mathematicians, epidemiologists, economists, geologists… All kinds of scientists have studied risk because risk is everywhere and one has to learn about it from many different directions.
These sciences all create information about risk but they don't use that information: scientists don't make decisions. It's up to someone else to educate people how to live safely.
What I study is how people think about risk and respond to information about risk. Together with some colleagues of mine I have developed some methods to describe risk perception and to measure its impact on people and society. I sometimes study scientists, how they make these judgments and how they use it. I also study governments and how they face risk and how they behave in a situation of risk.

The study of risk from a psychological point of view can therefore be applied to many fields of everyday's life.
Sure. It can be applied to all risk situations in the most different fields, starting from modern technologies, to the nuclear, to bio-technologies and also to the field of advertising and marketing, of natural sciences, of bank and investments…

Do people have the same risk perception as scientists?
The public and the scientists often disagree about risk. The question is: Is what the scientist says always right or is there something in the public view which is also right? Sometimes people make mistakes and often they don't know as much as the scientists about the effects.
However, the public is concerned not only with effects or outcomes, but also about whether something is involuntary or not: it is different if you make the decision yourself to do something that may be dangerous. If you are forced to do something, you say it's not under my control, someone else is imposing it on me, that's a value judgement. It makes a difference to people whether they choose to be exposed to the risk or whether someone else forces them to be exposed. Scientists can tell you something about risk, but they can't make decisions about the values.
Risk is not only a scientific matter, it involves values. And public values also are part of risk.

Can people learn to evaluate and to face risk? Is it possible to teach it?
Actually people have learned it in two ways: one is what we call "experiential learning", this is the main way people learn (like people learn how to ride a bike carefully). It's everyday learning, this is the way people survived during evolution: over the course of many years there was a process where people decided what was safe to do and what wasn't. This is not done through science, it's done through experiential learning, through feelings, through images and emotions.
But in the modern world we have created many new dangers, the effects of which can also be delayed in time (radiation effects, small amounts of chemicals which can cause cancer after many years…). You can't learn to defend yourself against such dangers through experience. The only way to study the effects of these hazards is to use science. Then scientists communicate to people what they have found and then people have to decide what does this mean for them and for their family or community. Consider things like radiation or bio-tech foods: we didn't evolve in a world that helps us understand biotech, so we have to try to understand how much people can learn about this from science and how this affects their attitudes. 

How did you get in touch with the Lab for Cognitive Sciences?
The contact has been through Professor Rino Rumiati and Dr. Lucia Savadori. I met them several years ago and they invited me to come to Padova. I gave some lectures there. More recently professor Rumiati told me about this Laboratory and he also invited me to come to Rovereto to visit and to give some lectures.
It has been a very nice and interesting experience because, in addition to giving some seminars, I also met with different people. I consulted with Dr. Savadori and Professor Rumiati and we worked together on some research. I also met with students to discuss research ideas.

What are the projects for the future, concerning this relationship with Rovereto?
I hope the relationship will continue. I was very impressed by the structure, by the researchers, and by the whole staff whom I met here. So I am very happy about my visit here, and I look forward to future collaboration with the Laboratory for Cognitive Science.