Citation

Bostrom A. J. Risk Res. 2008; 11(1): 99.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/13669870701602956

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This paper reviews evidence for the use of analogies and comparisons to understand risks and conflation of different risks, from mental model studies of lead paint hazard, global climate change and smallpox disease and vaccine. For each study participants use analogies with other risks explicitly, and often draw inferences based on their experiences or knowledge of those other risks. In the case of lead paint, study participants judged options for testing and mitigating lead paint by analogy with risks as diverse as radon and mercury, with corresponding differences in their assessments of proposed strategies. Mental models of smallpox disease and vaccine are often explicitly based on analogies with chickenpox, which is much more familiar to study participants. Many studies of climate change have demonstrated conflation of stratospheric ozone depletion with global warming from the greenhouse effect. Some study participants adopt other frames, such as weather, which affects their inferences in predictable ways. These findings are discussed in light of theories on the role of analogy and metaphor in thinking and inference. Taking into account the prevalence, structure and pitfalls of comparisons and analogies should help risk communication designers better realize their potential.