English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Considerable previous research has examined factors that make up risk perception (its content), and the mechanisms through which risk is perceived (the process(es)). Content-based models have the advantage of identifying specific beliefs that may be out of line with expert judgments, while process-based models are better able to isolate specific mechanisms through which beliefs operate. Despite the advantages of both types, to date most models of risk perception have focused on either one or the other. Here we present and test a revised version of the content-based model tested in Walpole and Wilson (2021) that includes exposure to hazards, susceptibility to consequences and the magnitude of consequences (risk beliefs) and affective responses to hazards. We arrange these concepts in a mediated format that is capable of representing the deliberative and affective processes through which risk beliefs are integrated into holistic risk judgments. We test two versions of the model using a sample of undergraduate students (n = 422), one in which risk beliefs operate independently of one another, and another where the effects of risk beliefs interact with one another. We find evidence to suggest that affective responses are a plausible mediator between risk beliefs and holistic risk judgments, suggesting that this arrangement of the model is capable of representing both deliberative and affective pathways for apprehending risk. Further we find evidence to suggest that the effects of risk beliefs augment one another in elevating holistic risk judgments through both pathways. We close by discussing implications for risk communication and directions for future research.

Both analysis and feelings? The influence of risk beliefs on holistic risk judgments through dual systems using the ESSA model