Assessing Risk: A Public Analysis of the Medfly Eradication Program

The Mediterranean Fruit Fly eradication program provided an opportunity to assess public attitudes toward technological risks. This is a case study of 126 residents from a metropolitan area who, during the 1981-82 Mediterranean Fruitfly Crisis, were undergoing exposure to aerial spraying with a pesticide. While only one-third of the subjects expressed fear of danger to their health and to the environment, 94 percent undertook one or more major behavioral precautions. Individual differences in risk perception were related to perceived benefits of the program, political ideology, faith in experts, and media exposure. Individual differences in risk acceptability varied primarily as a function of risk perception. Federal, state, and business agencies were perceived as influential in decision making, with individual citizens having little opportunity for input. Glenn R. Hawkes and Marc Pilisuk are Professors in the Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis. Martha C. Stiles is a staff researcher and Curt Acredolo is a research psychologist in the same department. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Gregg Nerase and Guy Whitlow. Funding was supplied in part by a grant from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (#1786) and the California Agricultural Experiment Station. A copy of the questionnaire may be obtained from the Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences, UC Davis. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 48:443-451 ? 1984 by the Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 0033-362X/84/0048-443/$2.50 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.161 on Mon, 23 May 2016 05:41:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 444 GLENN R. HAWKES, ET AL. eradication and was exacerbated by the extensive media coverage of disagreements between public officials in local, state, and federal governments, agricultural business groups, scientific experts, and environmental groups.1 Opinions diverged over the fact that spraying of such duration had never been tried in populous urban centers and long-term effects had not yet been adequately studied. In addition, stripping fruit trees, quarantining, and releasing sterile flies had been largely ineffective and publicly criticized. Given the magnitude of such coverage, the eradication program was as much a political-media issue as it was a human health and environmental one. Using both attitude assessments (Fishbein, 1967) and behavioral measures, we seized the opportunity to study persons exposed to a technological event of unknown risk which was generating considerable debate and media attention. Risk Perception and Acceptability It is known that risk perception varies as a function of sex, age, and education. Women express greater risk avoidance than men (e.g., Otway, et al., 1975); and the youthful population voices greater concern (Meltsner, 1978; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980), as do those with greater formal education (Morgan, 1967; Salcedo, 1971). Beyond these demographic differences, however, it appears that degree of confrontation and hazard-specific experience are negatively related to risk perception (e.g., Golant and Burton, 1969). Maderthaner, et al. (1976, 1978) view this as a case of "cognitive dissonance" (Festinger, 1957). "It is easier for people to change their beliefs and attitudes about living in a potential risk situation than to change their residence" (Maderthaner, et al., 1976, 1978). Meltsner (1978), however, proposes that increased exposure to or experience with a specific dangerous condition serves to reinforce indifference toward that condition, unless serious personal damage is incurred. Acceptability of risk does not necessarily covary directly with the degree of risk perceived. Perceived benefit may make even high risks acceptable (Vlek and Stallen, 1980). The work of Otway, et al., (1978) on nuclear power supports this hypothesis. They found that positive attitude could be attributed mainly to the perception of significant "economic and technological benefits." Negative attitudes, on the other hand, could be attributed to the perception of significant risk, particularly psychological risk. 1 Two former governors of California had much political stake in the outcome. They positioned themselves at polar ends, and the drama of the controversy between President Reagan and Governor Brown made this a media event of international proportions. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.161 on Mon, 23 May 2016 05:41:17 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ASSESSING RISK: MEDFLY ERADICATION PROGRAM 445 Lowrance (1976) suggests, in addition, that voluntariness of exposure influences acceptance: "We are loath to let others do unto us what we happily do to ourselves." This tendency was also revealed in the study of perceived risks of nuclear power facilities (Otway and Fishbein, 1977). These facilities were viewed as hazardous largely because risk exposure was involuntary, and Swaton (1976) reports that most people see themselves as having minimal personal influence over technological risk situations.