Florida State University Libraries

Transcription

1 Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2004 The Perception of Risk in Sport Activities Sunho Mun Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact

2 THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION THE PERCEPTION OF RISK IN SPORT ACTIVITIES By SUNHO MUN A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Sport Management, Recreation Management, & Physical Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2004 Copyright 2004 SunHo Mun All Rights Reserved

3 The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of SunHo Mun defended on June 17, E. Newton Jackson, Jr. Professor Directing Dissertation Tonya Toole Outside Committee Member Jerome Quarterman Committee Member Michael Mondello Committee Member Approved: Charles H. Imwold, Chairperson, Department of Sport Management, Recreation Management and Physical Education The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members ii

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My most profound thanks are given to Dr. E. Newton Jackson Jr., my adviser. He has provided invaluable encouragement and guidance; I will never forget his efforts. I am also grateful to my committee members, Dr. Jerome Quarterman, Dr. Tonya Toole and Dr. Mondello, all of whom provided assistance and support throughout my doctoral studies. Without the encouragement, guidance, and patience of my parents, this dissertation would have never been completed. I simply can t adequately express the thanks that are due to my mother and father, who hold a very special place in my heart. Thanks are also due to my children, Eric(Younghyun) and Justin (Youngmin), who realized what is most important, and to my wife, Sora Cha, who gave me her heart to complete this work. I will always thank her for her endless efforts; I love you, forever, Sora. iii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES.. ABSTRACT. vi viii ix CHAPTER I.. 1 Introduction.. 1 Conceptual Framework 3 Statement of the Problem. 11 Purpose of the Study 12 Assumption of the Study. 12 Limitation of the Study 13 Definition of Terms.. 13 Research Questions and Research Hypotheses 14 Significance of the Study. 15 CHAPTER II. 17 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Concept of Risk. 17 Perception of Risk. 19 Technical Approach to Acceptance of Risk and Its Limitations. 19 Psychometric Paradigm Studies Risk Taking Risk Communication 29 The Relationship of Trust, Knowledge, Experience, and Benefit to Perception of Risk 33 CHAPTER III. 40 METHODS 40 Research Design. 40 Population and Sample Instrument Development 41 Psychometric Paradigm in Sport Activities.. 42 Pilot Study for Psychometric Paradigm in Sport Activities. 43 iv

6 Factor Affecting Risk Perception of Football Pilot Study for Factors Affecting Risk Perception in Football. 47 Data Collection Procedure. 51 Data Analysis. 52 CHAPTER IV.. 55 RESULTS.. 55 Demographic Descriptive Statistics of the Samples. 55 Overall Perceived Risk. 56 Mean Score for Risk Characteristics 58 Correlation Matrix for Risk Characteristics. 58 Exploratory Factor Analysis Factors Affecting Perception of Risk in Football Hypotheses Tests 74 CHAPTER V. 78 Discussion. 78 Diverse Sport Activities Perception of Risk Using The Psychometric Paradigm 78 Factor Affecting Risk Perception in Football.. 80 Implications of the Study.. 83 Recommendations for Future Research 84 APPENDICES A. THE INITIAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 86 B. THE FINAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE C. INITIAL HUMAN SUBJECT APPROVAL LETTER 108 D. FINAL HUMAN SUBJECT APPROVAL LETTER. 110 E. PERMISSION TO USE QUESTIONNAIRE REFERENCES BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH v

7 LIST OF TABLES 1. Twelve Sport Activities Description of Perceived Risk Characteristics and Overall Risk Reliability of Cronbach Alpha Coefficients for Each Item Description of Each Factor Items & Scale Exploratory Factor Analysis for Items of Factors Affecting Perception of Risk in Football Reliability Estimate of Each Factor for Factors Affecting Perception of Risk in Football Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Characteristics Perceived Risk for Each Sport Activities Mean and Standard Deviations for Risk Characteristics Correlation Matrix for Risk Characteristics Factor Analysis for Risk Characteristics Fit Indices for Exogenous Variables in Measurement Model Factor Loadings and Squared Multiple Correlations for Exogenous Variables in Measurement Model Fit Indices for Endogenous Variables in Measurement Model Factor Loadings and Squared Multiple Correlations for Endogenous Variables in Measurement Model Fit Indices for Overall Variables in Structure Model 73 vi

8 17. Modification Indices for Structure Model Factor Loading for Variables in Structure Model. 75 vii

9 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Factors I and II derived from the Interrelationships among 16 Risk Characteristics Proposed Conceptual Framework for Factors Affecting Risk Perception in Football Factor Structure for Two Dimensions Location of Twelve Sport Activities a Two-Factor Space Enlarged Location of Twelve Sport Activities a Two-Factor Space CFA Model for Factors Affecting Perception of Risk in Unstandardized Exogenous Variables CFA Model for Factors Affecting Perception of Risk in Standardized Exogenous Variables CFA Model for Factors Affecting Perception of Risk in Unstandardized Endogenous Variables CFA Model for Factors Affecting Perception of Risk in Standardized Endogenous Variables Final Structure Model for Factors Affecting Perception of Risk in Standardized Variables.. 77 viii

10 ABSTRACT Sporting events are among the most popular leisure activities; however, there are inherent risks of serious injury or death associated with these activities. Prior to developing a risk management plan, it is important to clearly understand the perception of risk among laypeople. Such understanding will substantially improve communication between professionals and participants, resulting in the emergence of a better risk management plan. Despite the evident benefits of such communication, there are few studies directly addressing the perception of risk in the field of sport management. The purpose of this study is to identify how people perceive risk in sport activities, by applying the psychometric paradigm and then, more specifically, identifying the factors affecting perception of risk in football. The sample for this study consisted of 256 collegiate students and a convenient, non-probability sampling method was used. To achieve the purpose of this study, two appropriate statistical methods were employed, SPSS for the psychometric paradigm and AMOS (SEM) for factors affecting perception of risk in football. The results of this bifurcated study indicate that rock climbing and motorcycling were perceived as the most risky among the selected sports, followed by snow skiing, jet skiing, and skin/scuba diving. Aerobics and jogging/running were perceived as the least risky among the selected sports. In applying the psychometric paradigm, six risk characteristics were used, divided by the two factors of fatality and known. The fatality factor was associated with the characteristics of chronic/catastrophic, common/dread, severity of consequences and control over risk; the known factor was associated with the characteristics of voluntariness and knowledge about risk. The fatality factor appeared in relation to high-risk sport activities, such as rock climbing, snow skiing, jet skiing, motorcycling, and skin/scuba diving. Sport activities perceived as less risky, including jogging/running, swimming, aerobics, tennis, racquetball and weight training, appear in relation to the known factor. Structure Equation Modeling (SEM) ix

11 was used in that part of the study devoted to identifying factors affecting perception of risk in football, revealing both exogenous (knowledge, experience, perceived risk characteristic, and trust) and endogenous (perceived benefit and perception of risk in football) variables. The structure model illustrated that the paths of knowledge and experience to risk perception in football were not statistically significant. The paths of risk characteristic, trust and perceived benefit to perception of risk were statistically significant. The path of trust to perceived benefit was also significant and a new path, experience to perceived benefit, was identified as statistically significant. x

12 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Participation in sports has become one of the most popular leisure activities; most people correctly believe that sports are capable of producing both physical and mental benefits for participants. Most people also realize, of course, that participation in sport activities includes the potential risk of injury or death. Many parents worry that their children may be injured while participating in sport activities (Fried & Appenzeller, 1999). In 1990, for instance, approximately 560,000 bicycle accidents sent mostly youngsters to hospital emergency rooms, producing an estimated economic cost estimated at $1.2 billion (Good Sport, 1992). About 30% of eye injuries among the young are sport-related, with 90% of these injuries being preventable (National Youth Sports Safety Foundation, 1997). Sport-related injuries are not, of course, limited to the young. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, 2000), sportrelated injuries increased among individuals aged 35 to 54, roughly 30% from 1991 to It was also reported that there were a large number of deaths during the same time period, and among the same age group, relating especially to bicycling, skiing and swimming. There was an average of 290 deaths per year related to bicycling, around 35 of which were motor-vehicle related, 67 deaths per year related to swimming, and 7 deaths per year related to skiing. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, 1992), the total number of emergency room visits, at which injured parties indicated how they were injured, includes a significant number of sport-related accidents: Basketball 752,798 Bicycling 649,536 1

13 Football 447,320 Weight-lifting 65,153 Golf 37,556 Tennis 31,042 Rytina (1994) indicated that the annual injury rates for soccer range around 155,000 injuries per year, with 70% of all injuries occurring to individuals between the ages of 10 and 24. He also observed that in-line skating is rapidly becoming one of the greatest injury-producing sports; during 1994, ten in-line skate related deaths were reported in the United States. These statistics clearly indicate that there are risks related to sports; however, this does not negate the importance of sport participation in relation to health and fitness. Because safety is a major consideration when undertaking any sport, participants should be mindful of risk management to avoid injury or death. Risk management has been defined as a system designed to control the personal-injury and financial losses that result from sudden, unforeseen, unusual accidents and intentional torts (Ammon, 1993). Graham, Goldblatt and Delpy (1995) described risk management, in the context of sports, as responsible for identifying and determining which methods to employ against potential threats that may negatively affect a sport event. Appenzeler (1998) observed that risks are inevitable in sports and even the safest programs cannot completely prevent accidents and injuries; however, the law expects that sport managers will make a reasonable effort to develop risk management and loss programs to ensure a safe environment for all participants. An important first step, prior to the adoption of a particular risk management plan, is to improve communications between risk managers and the physically-active public. A clear perception of risks, by the public, will ultimately result in the emergence of a better risk management plan. Although the facts clearly indicate that there are inherent risks related to sports, it is nonetheless important that people participate in sport activities for health benefits. Prior to developing a risk management plan, it is important to clearly understand the perception of risk among laypeople. Such understanding will substantially improve 2

14 communication between risk managers and the public, from which a better and more sophisticated risk management plan will emerge. Conceptual Framework The perception of risk The conceptual framework for a study of the perception of risk in sport activities is the dominant approach to risk perception, known as the psychometric paradigm, introduced by Fischhoff, Slovic and Lichtenstein (1978). This model addressed risk perception in a wide range of hazardous activities. It assumes that risk is subjectively defined by individuals who may be influenced by psychological, social, institutional and cultural factors. The paradigm is currently in use as a generalization; it applies to sporting activities only and how people perceive risk in each sport. On the other hand, the psychometric paradigm has been criticized because it ignores the social and political context in which a community opposes hazardous or large scale technologies (Laird, 1989). For instance, Krimsky and Plough (1989) argued that risk perception can not be understood apart from the complex social framework in which risks are imbedded. Furthermore, Cvetkovich and Earle (1992) emphasized that community opposition to technical projects is shaped not only by individual experiences and responses, but also by social group behavior, institutional structure, and political considerations. These arguments accentuate the significance of contextual factors in formulating risk perceptions. There are two conceptual frameworks employed in this study: (i) the psychometric paradigm and (ii) the factors affecting risk perception, which are knowledge, trust, perceived risk characteristic, experience, and perceived benefit. The psychometric paradigm The general mechanisms by which people process risk information have been intensively studied, predominantly by psychometric quantitative methods (Finucane, 3

15 Slovic, Mertz, Flynn & Satterfield, 2000; Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read & Combs, 1978; Goszczynsks, Tyszka & Slovic, 1991; Flynn, Slovic & Mertz, 1994; Hinman, Rosa, Kleinhesselink & Lowinger, 1993; Keown, 1989; Kleinhesselink & Rosa, 1991; Kleinhesselink, 1992; Krewskim Slovic, Bartlett, Flynn & Mertz, 1995; Lichtenstein, Slovic, Fischhoff, Layman & Commbs, 1978; Slovic, Kraus, Lappe, Letzel & Malmfors, 1989; Slovic, Kraus, Lappe & Major, 1991; Teigen, Brun & Slovic, 1988). Renn & Rohrmann (2000) observed that the psychometric approach is based on four intentions: To establish risk as a subjective concept, not an objective entity, To include technical/physical and social/psychological aspects in risk criteria, To accept opinions of the public (i.e. laypeople, not experts) as the matter of interest, To analyze the cognitive structure of risk judgments, usually employing multivariate statistical procedures such as factor analysis, multi-dimensional scaling or multiple regression. The psychometric paradigm approach to risk research originated with the work of Fischhoff, Lichtenstein and Slovic (1978); many subsequent studies have been undertaken in the United States, Europe, China, and even Hong Kong. The most common approach to this goal has employed the psychometric paradigm, which uses psycho-physical scaling and multivariate analysis techniques to produce quantitative representations or cognitive maps of risk attitudes and perceptions (Slovic, 1987). With the psychometric paradigm, one can make quantitative judgments about the current and desired riskiness of diverse hazards and the desired level of regulation of each. These judgment are then related to judgments about other properties, such as (i) the hazard s status relating to characteristics that have been hypothesized to account for risk perceptions and attitudes (for example, voluntariness, dread, knowledge, and controllability), (ii) the benefits that each hazard or activity provides to society, (iii) the number of deaths or injuries caused by the hazard in an average year, and (iv) the number of deaths caused by the hazard or activity in a disastrous year (Slovic, 1987). 4

16 Characteristics of Risk Starr, Slovic, Fischhoff and Kichtenstein produced much of the early research in the new field of risk perception. Starr (1969) went on to use economic risk and benefit data from previous years to determine societal patterns of acceptable risk-benefit tradeoffs. Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein (1978; 1979) conducted psychometric surveys to directly assess public attitudes about the relative risks and benefits of given activities. The six attributes associated with risk are examined below. 1. Voluntariness Starr (1969) derived what is known as voluntariness from his definitions of acceptable risk; namely: The acceptability of risk is roughly proportional to the third power (cube) of the benefits; the public seems willing to accept risk from voluntary activities roughly 1000 times greater than it would tolerate from involuntary activities that provide the same level of benefit; the acceptable level of risk is inversely related to the number of persons exposed to that risk; and the level of risk tolerated for voluntarily accepted hazards is quite similar to the level of risk from disease (p. 1237). Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read and Combs (1978) developed a scale for evaluating risk that was based on seven dimensions; these dimension include: voluntariness of risk, immediacy of effect, knowledge about risk to those exposed, knowledge about risk to science, control over risk, newness, chronic-catastrophic, common-dread, and severity of consequences. Even though Starr (1969) concluded that voluntariness was the major determinant of risk perception, Fischhoff et al. (1978) did not find this characteristic to be related significantly to the acceptability of a perceived risk. 2. Knowledge Knowledge about perception of risk can be divided to two parts; the first part is the extent to which the risks are precisely known by the persons exposed to the risks, while the second part is the extent to which the risks are known to science (Fischhoff et al., 1978). Expecting low levels of knowledge by either those exposed or by scientists leads to higher levels of perceived risks (Rimer, 1997). 5

17 3. Controllability According to Fischhoff et al. (1978), controllability can be defined in terms of personal control. The specific questionnaire asked if you are exposed to the risk of each activity or technology, to what extent can you, by personal skill or diligence, avoid death while engaging in the activity? (p. 133). Lindell and Earle (1983) indicated that personal control is important in people s decisions to live varying distances from technical facilities. 4. Chronic-catastrophic The scale labeled chronic-catastrophic was assessed by asking respondents is this a risk that kills people one at a time (chronic) or a risk that kills large numbers of people at once (catastrophic)? (Fischhoff et al., 1978, p. 133). Generally, catastrophic events or activities with catastrophic potential were perceived as being far riskier than chronic events or activities (Rimer, 1997). 5. Common-dread The degree of common-dread experienced by the subject was evaluated by asking is this a risk that people have learned to live with and can think about reasonably calmly, or is it one that people have great dread for on the level of a gut reaction (Fischhoff et al., 1978, p. 133). 6. Severity of consequence The last attribute used by Fischhoff et al. (1978) was severity of consequence. This attribute was evaluated by asking subjects what the likelihood of fatality would be if the risk from the activity was realized in the form of a mishap or illness. Vlek and Stallen (1981) used a similar concept, but defined it in terms of the size of a potential accident. Activities associated with either a high likelihood of fatality or more serious accidents were rated as riskier (Rimer, 1997). In further research, Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein (1984) extended the study of risk perception to ninety hazards or activities, which included sport activities such as bicycling, football, boxing, mountain climbing, downhill skiing, skateboards, scuba diving, jogging, and hunting. They also asked about eighteen risk characteristics, including voluntary-involuntary and common-dread (see, Figure 1). 6

18 Controllable Not dread Not global catastrophe Consequences not fatal Equitable Individual Low risk to future Generations Easily reduced Risk decreasing Voluntary Doesn t affect me Not observable Unknown to those exposed Effect Delayed New risk Risks unknown to Science Observable Known to those exposed Effect Immediate Old risk Risks known to science Factor II Source: Slovic et al., (1984) Uncontrollable Dread Global catastrophe Consequences fatal Not equitable Catastrophic--- High risk to future Generations Not easily reduced Risk increasing Involuntary Affects me Factor I Figure 1. Factors I and II derived form the interrelationships among 16 risk characteristics. Each factor is made up of a combination of characteristics, as indicated by the diagram. 7

19 Factors affecting the risk perception The conceptual model developed for this study of factors affecting risk perception in relation to football were proposed by Alhakami and Slovic (1994), Cha (1997), Cvetkovich (1999), Earle and Cvetkovich (1995), Fischhoff et al., (1978; 1979), Flynn, Burns, Mertz and Slovic(1992), Frewer, Howard and Shepherd (1998),, Hines, Hungerford and Tomera (1986), Lindel and Earle (1983), Maderthanner et al., (1978), MacGregor, Slovic, Mason and Detweiler (1994), Siegrist (1999; 2000), Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2000), Sjoberg and Drottz-Sjoberg (1991), Slovic (1986; 1987) Van, Eiser and Spears (1986). The literature has recognized variables that influence risk perception when applied to football; the following section consists of a review of the findings. Perceived Risk Characteristics Psychometric studies have identified several perceived risk characteristics, such as controllability, chronic-catastrophic, common-dread, severity of consequence, and newness. According to the pilot study, football is highly associated with the fatality risk dimension, which includes more dread, certain to be fatal, catastrophic, and uncontrollable. On the other hand, golf is more voluntary and the risks better known than those related to football or ice hockey. Some research indicated that perceived risk increases as levels of perceived risk characteristics increase (Cha, 1997; Fischhoff et al., 1978, 1979; & Slovic, 1986, 1987). Knowledge A number of researchers have studied the relationship between knowledge and risk perception. They have determined that high levels of knowledge about risk are associated with lower levels of perceived risk (Hines et al., 1986; Sjoberg & Drottz- Sjoberg, 1991; & Slovic, 1987). Furthermore, Mun (2003) revealed that the lowest perceived risk among sport activities is associated with the voluntary and knowledge dimensions; it can be inferred the same as the other researchers. Lindell and Earle (1983) indicated that those who participated more often reported greater knowledge of the risk and having less fear of the risks. 8

20 Trust Trust in information sources and institutions have been recently emphasized as one of the most significant factors affecting risk perception. Cha (1997) argued that distrust leads a community to discount risk information received from potential information sources and institutions. Such distrust eventually leads to an increase in perceived risk. The function of trust is to reduce the complexity that people face in relation to a sport activity; instead of making rational judgments based on knowledge, trust is placed on experts whose opinions are believed to be accurate (Earle & Cvetkovich, 1995). Siegrist (2000) has demonstrated that trust has a strong effect on benefits and perceived risks. This research emphasizes that trust has strong positive effects on the benefit dimension. Freudenburg (1993) found that people who placed trust in the current scientific and technical abilities to build safe nuclear waste disposal sites were less concerned about a hypothetical nuclear waste repository in their county. People who trusted the authorities perceived less risk than those without such trust (Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000). Experience Several researchers have conducted studies upon the relationship between experience and perception of risk. The findings suggest that frequent contact with potentially threatening nuclear power reduces the perceived nuclear risk (Maderthaner, Guttnam, Swaton & Otway, 1978; Van der Plight, Eiser & Spears, 1986). Moreover, higher levels of perceived nuclear risk are associated with lower levels of experience (Richardson, Sorensen & Soderstrom, 1987). Experience is identified as a factor that determines how sensitive people are to risks. Other evidence suggests that people with greater experience of constant and extreme risks may be less concerned. For instance, those living close to hazardous facilities are often less concerned about the concomitant risks than those living further away (MacGregor, Slovic, Mason & Detweiler, 1994). 9

21 Perceived Benefits and Risk Some studies have found significant correlations in the relationship between perceived benefits and perceived risks (Alhakami & Slovic, 1994); furthermore, Gregory and Mendelsohn (1993) indicated that the bivariate correlation between risks and benefits was significant. Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2000) found negative correlations between perceived risks and perceived benefits when trust was controlled for, correlations between perceived risks and benefits diminished, and participants perceiving many benefits associated with a technology assessed less risk than participants viewing the technology as unbeneficial. Based upon these findings, it has been argued that it may be possible to change perceived risk by changing the perception of benefits (Frewer, Howard & Shepherd, 1998). The need for consistency in beliefs and the tendency to avoid cognitive dissonance may cause the negative association between perceived risks and benefits (Alhakami & Slovic, 1994). In other words, pressure toward consistency results in devaluation of the risks and elevation of the benefits for technologies perceived as good, and the opposite effect occurs for technologies viewed as bad. The following chart displays the proposed conceptual model for factors affecting risk perception in football (see Figure 2). 10

22 Knowledge Perception of Risk Football Experience Perceived Risk Characteristic Perceived Benefit Football Trust Figure 2. Proposed Conceptual Framework for Factors Affecting Risk Perception in Football. Statement of the Problem In recent years, sport-related litigation has steadily increased. Appenzeller (1999) indicated that torts have increased against all whom are involved in the operation of the multi-billion dollar sport industry; furthermore, this increase represents a wide variety of legal actions. It is clear that the development of risk management plans, as important attendants to sport law, will help prevent sport-related accidents and the consequential legal actions. Risk management can provide policies, procedures, safety audits, risk 11

23 reviews and emergency action plans to battle the flood of lawsuits resulting from sport injuries in record numbers (Appenzeller, 1999). In the application of a risk management plan and process, one of the most important factors is laypeople s perceptions of risk in sport activities. An improved risk management plan and process depends upon clearly understanding how people perceive risk. There are few problems related to the measurement of risk perception in sport activities, because it has not been studied in the field of sport management. This research seeks to examine the nature of risk perception in sport activities, using the psychometric paradigm, to measure overall quantitative judgment of perception of risk in a variety of sport activities, as well as which factors affect risk perception in football. Purpose of the Study There were two primary purposes of this study: The first purpose of this study was to identify how people perceive risk in sport activities, to identify which risk characteristics are associated with sport activities through factor analysis and to identify quantitative judgments about perceived risk by application of the psychometric paradigm. The second purpose of this study was to identify the factors affecting perception of risk in football activities and which factors are relatively important in relation to football activities through the characteristics of knowledge, experience, trust, risk characteristic, and perceived benefits. Assumption of the Study There are several assumptions of the study. 1. It is assumed that collegiate students are an appropriate population by which to measure the perception of risk. The reason is that collegiate students tend to vigorously participate in a variety of sports activities. 2. The selection of sample is assumed to adequately represents the population. 3. Respondents are sufficiently familiar with the perception of risk to reliably answer the questionnaire. 12

24 4. Respondents will answer honestly. 5. The fundamental assumptions of the expressed preferences approach are that perceived risk is predictable and quantifiable, risk means different things to different people, and even though groups disagree about the overall riskiness of specific hazards, all agree about the importance of controllability, dread, and catastrophic potential (Slovic et al., 1984). Limitation of the Study There are several limitations of the study. 1. The results of this study were limited to collegiate students enrolled in Lifetime Activity Program courses at a southeastern public university. 2. The sampling method used is the non-probability method, which is a convenient sampling method. Due to the length of the questionnaire, probability sampling was not appropriate for this study. 3. The results of this study can not be generalized to the perception of risk in sport activities, due to the use of non-probability sampling and the limited sample size. Definition of Terms The following definitions of terms are used in this study. Risk is used to refer to the complete description of possible undesired consequences of a course of action, together with an indication of their likelihood and seriousness in sport activities (Vlek & Stallen, 1981). Risk Perception refers to the tendency of a person to take or avoid risks (Morrone, 1994). Risk Characteristic refers to the influence of the relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit, such as voluntariness, knowledge, controllability, newness, chronic-catastrophic, common-dread, and severity of consequence (Slovic, Fischhoff & Lichtenstein, 1978). Voluntariness is used to imply informed consent. Defining voluntariness to reflect this philosophy requires recognizing that individual choice must be well-informed 13

25 to be truly voluntary; moreover, those who engage in a voluntary activity must have viable alternatives (Jenni, 1997). Controllability is used to specify who has control, and of where in the hazard-toconsequence chain that control can be executed (Lindell & Earle, 1983). Chronic/Catastrophic refers to a scale of the number of deaths in a single incident, such that the numbers covered by each category are judged similar in their impact or importance (Jenni, 1997) Dread refers to the psychological impact of being exposed to a hazard to the fear or stress caused by knowledge of or exposure to a hazard (Fischhoff, Watson & Hope, 1984). Dread relates to the level of fear people feel when they consider the risk associated with each sport activity. Severity refers to the severity of the consequence, directly, rather than simply the probability of fatalities (Jenni, 1997) Trust refers to people s willingness to rely on the circumstance of football and to be injured by football, the positive outcomes of which are expected from the interaction characterized by risk (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995). Research Questions & Research Hypotheses Research Questions for Psychometric Paradigm RQ1. Is there any difference in perceived risk among sport activities? RQ2. Can the risk characteristics associated with sport activities be differentiated through factor analysis? RQ3. In what way do the highest and lowest perceived risks in sport activities relate to the two factors that can be identified using the psychometric paradigm? Research Hypotheses for Factors Affecting the Perception of Risk in Football Based on the proposed conceptual model for factors affecting the perception of risk in football, these are the research hypotheses. RH1 There will be a significant negative relationship between the knowledge factor and risk perception in football. 14

26 RH2 There will be a significant negative relationship between the experience factor and risk perception in football. RH3 There will be a significant positive relationship between the perceived risk characteristic and risk perception in football. RH4 There will be a significant negative relationship between the trust factor and risk perception in football. RH5 There will be a significant positive relationship between the trust factor and perceived benefit in football. RH6 There will be a significant negative relationship between the perceived benefit and risk perception in football. Significance of the Study The perception of risk has become a very important issue to risk managers, coaches, supervisors and even recreational participants; however, these perceptions have been rarely studied in the field of sport management. This study will attempt to address the perception of risk in sport activities, using a psychometric paradigm that measures the perception of risk, and establish a method by which the relative risky-ness of a particular sport might be measured, and attempt to identify, among the factors influencing perception of risk in football, which is most affective toward the perception of risk in football. This study examines the relationship between perception of risk in football and the factors of knowledge experience, perceived risk characteristic, trust, and perceived benefit. The results of this study will contribute not only to the understanding of students who study sport law and risk management, especially risk behavior, but also to research focused on risk management. Furthermore, this study will contribute to the practical understanding of risk managers who work in the sport setting. Ammon (2001) revealed that developing a risk management plan consists of three separate steps: (1) identifying the risks, (2) classifying the risks, and (3) selecting methods of treatment for the risks. He pointed out that one of the important steps is the identification of risk. When risk managers investigate risk, they should understand that the perception of risk in lay-people 15

27 constitutes the proper identification of risk. Such an approach may be used to better inform the recreational public about the risks of sport-related injury or death, and to better design risk management plans. 16

28 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter utilizes a four-fold approach to describe academic literature relating to risk perception. Materials that seek to conceptualize risk, including physical risk, are reviewed first. Materials that illustrate the historical aspects of risk perception, such as the technical approach to the acceptance of risk and its limitations, the comparative approach, the revealed preferences approach, risk/benefit analysis, heuristic and judgmental biases, psychometric paradigm studies and related generalizations, and criticism of psychometric paradigm studies are reviewed second. Materials relating to risk-taking, risk communication and the closely related social application of risk are reviewed third, and then the relationship of trust, knowledge, experience, and perceived benefit to perception of risk in football are reviewed. Concept of Risk Risk signifies a wide range of meanings, such as fear of specific hazards, concern for the interdependency of humans and technological systems, uncertainty regarding financial gain or loss, fear of the malevolent forces of nature, and the thrill of adventure (Jaeger, Renn, Rosa & Webler, 2001). Vlek and Stallen (1980) emphasized the need to differentiate large-scale from small-scale risk, with large-scale risk being associated with socio-technological systems, and small-scale risk being more defined on an individual level. Having made this distinction, they provided both qualitative and quantitative definitions of risk. Qualitatively, they defined risk as the complete description of possible undesired consequences of a course of action, together with an indication of their 17

29 likelihood and seriousness (p. 275). One year later, the same authors briefly described six additional risk definitions represented in the work of several authors, and all lending themselves to quantification (Vlek & Stallen, 1981, p. 238). Risk was variously defined in the following ways: The probability of loss, The size of (credible) loss, The expected loss, The variance of the probability distribution over the utilities, and The semi-variance of the utility distribution. Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtensteing, and their colleagues, implicitly defined risk in terms of mortality when they attempted to measure the perceived risk of participating in a variety of activities (Fischhoff et al., 1978; Lichtenstein et al., 1978; Slovic, Fischhoff & Lichtenstein, 1982, 1984). They asked two subjects to consider the risk of dying as a consequence of participating in activities that ranged from consuming alcoholic beverages to using home appliances, using pesticides to having vaccinations, x- rays or even participating in sport activities. Risk, therefore, means different things to different people. Physical Risk In sport, more so than in most human endeavors, the possibility of physical risk is clearly evident. Physical risk can be defined as a more specific variety of the general case. The prime element of risk is uncertainty of outcome. With physical risk, although the outcome remains uncertain, the consequences of the outcome are specific to either personal safety or physical injury to some degree (McGrath, 1970). Physical risk, as an element of an activity, has several other characteristics. First, physical risk is a perceived quality having subjective reality, whether it is actually encountered or merely anticipated by the individual (Wherry, 1966). Second, physical risk is extremely variable. It may vary between individuals as the result of differential recognition, even if the circumstances are apparently identical. Likewise, seemingly 18

30 similar conditions may be perceived by a given individual to have very different physical risk characteristics (Neal, 1972). While the existence of physical risk in sport activities seems self-evident, there is a notable lack of research into the complex relationships which must exist between risk and participation (Neal, 1972). Perception of Risk The study of risk perception had its origins in research relating to judgment and decision-making, beginning with Mosteller and Nogee (1951), and Edwards (1953). The actual study of risk perception began in research on gambling. Historically, the approaches to research on risk perception can be classified into three areas: technical approaches, psychometric paradigm study, and socio-cultural approaches. Technical Approach to Acceptance of Risk and Its Limitations The general goal of the technical approach is to determine acceptable risk levels that are quantifiable and generalizable across diverse hazards. There are several approaches which are intended to determine the acceptance of risk, such as comparative risk, revealed preferences and risk/benefit analysis. Comparative Risk Approach The comparative risk approach is based on technical concerns that have evolved from the study of innate hazards and from scientific safety analysis. This advance is principally concerned with the quantification of risk. Comparative risk analysis is inherently prescriptive, as it directs the research to an apparently obvious choice (Cha, 1997). This approach is usually employed in cost/benefit analysis and probabilistic risk analysis. Fischhoff, Slovic and Litenstein (1979) referred to comparative risk as bootstrapping, by which they mean to indicate the use of past levels of acceptable risk to determine current levels of acceptable risk. The principle of this approach was to provide some basis for ordering society s priorities in controlling risks. A reasonable policy is one that would be cost-effective in addressing the most hazardous technological 19

31 risks prior to becoming concerned about those lower in estimated effects (Cha, 1997). On the other hand, Kelman (1981) argued that cost/benefit analysis is reducing all considerations-including risks to human life and the quality of the environment-to dollars and cents (p. 33). Kelman indicated that putting price tags on risks contradicts our basic social tenets that personal and environmental well-being, like other special values such as free speech and the right to vote, have no price (p. 40). Therefore, there are certain areas which cannot be justified by cost/benefit analysis. Revealed Preferences Approach The revealed preference method, which uses historical data to determine the societal weight of various risks, was originally developed by Starr (1969). Starr assumed that historical accident records were adequate for exploring consistent patterns of fatalities and that historically revealed social preferences and costs were sufficiently current to permit their use for predictive purpose (Cha, 1997). Starr attempted to compare the fatality levels for different activities, which were divided into the categories of voluntary or involuntary. He compared these results with a cost/benefit analysis incorporating money spent on different activities and, thereby, reached three major conclusions. First, the acceptable level of risk is roughly proportional to the third power of the benefits. Second, the public is willing to accept risks from voluntary activities, such as hunting or skiing, that are roughly a thousand times greater than those tolerated from involuntary activities with the same level of benefit. Third, the acceptable level of risk decreases as the number of persons exposed to the hazard increases (Starr, 1969). Fischhoff et al. (1978), however, indicated that a revealed preferences approach assumes that people not only have full information, but also can use the information optimally, an assumption which seems quite doubtful in the light of studies on the psychology of decision-making (p. 128). Moreover, Otway, Mauer and Thomas (1978) indicated that the revealed preferences method assumes that people will necessarily make consistent decisions in similar situations in the future. 20

32 Risk/Benefit Analysis Crouch and Richard (1982) have developed a risk/benefit analysis that avoids the restricted dependency on fatality data and would be more context-specific than the notional scope involved in general risk comparisons. The risk/benefit analysis attempts to develop quantified estimates of risk for comparison to benefits incurred. According to this analysis, risk is defined as a function of the probability of the risk. This analysis assumes that data exist or can be derived for comparisons and that there are benefits from such comparisons (Cha, 1997). The assumptions of risk/benefit analysis have, however, been challenged. Fischhoff et al. (1984) indicated that this approach would not be practical in the case of uncertain risks, especially when there is scientific disagreement due to difficulties in estimating risks and benefits. The technical approaches presume that risks are determined by rational and objective estimations; however, the rational/technical calculations on risks do not include important factors related to how people think about them. Therefore, the technical approaches have provided limited insight for the field of risk perception. The Study of Heuristics and Judgmental Biases The heuristics and judgmental advance is a theoretical contribution to risk perception research. As Slovic (1987) notes, Psychological research on risk perception originated in empirical studies of probability judgment and decision-making processes. A major development in this area has been the discovery of a set of heuristics that people employ in order to make sense in an uncertain world (p. 281). The study of heuristics and judgmental biases views acceptable risk problems as decision problems involving a number of qualitative dimensions. Heuristics explains how people perceive uncertain risk. According to Tversky and Kahneman (1973), frequent events are usually easier to imagine and recall than rare events, thus the availability of events is often an appropriate cue (p. 210) to risk perception. They also found that the availability is affected by many factors unrelated to frequency of occurrence. Tversky and Kanheman (1973; 1974) also suggested that people generally use a set of heuristics to handle complex probabilistic information processes and that the appearance of intuitive 21

33 perception of risk by the public acts to create the divergence from expert assessments of risk. In a similar study, Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein (1979) asked risk analysis experts and laypeople to rate charge diverse activities and technologies. The results revealed that experts judgments are closely associated with the best technical estimates of fatality rates while, in contrast, lay judgments demonstrated some biases toward overestimating low rates and underestimating high rates. This approach to risk perception is generally necessary and useful; however, it may lead to errors in judgment. Tversky and Kanheman (1981) identified four heuristics that have been important in risk perception studies. (1) Representativeness refers to the search for similarity between some new object and some existing class of objects along some dimensions; the similarity provides a basis for judging the new object within a person s experience. (2) Availability refers to the ability to bring instances or occurrences to mind; the ease of remembering similar instances or occurrences affects remembering judgments of probability and frequency. (3) Anchoring refers to an initial judgment, which may include an initial formulation of a problem; adjustments in light of new information tend to be partial or anchored to initial impressions. (4) Overconfidence refers to the tendency to be more confident in one s opinion than warranted by evidence or known probabilities (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Fischhoff (1985) listed six generalizations of how people perceive uncertain risks as major subjects in risk perception research: people tend to simplify due to the large amount of information presented in daily life. This includes demanding risk managers to treat substances that are continuous in their degree of risk as dichotomous either safe or unsafe; once people have reached decisions, it is difficult to change these opinions; people remember what they observe, which along with the media, is the primary method by which information is obtained; people cannot readily detect omissions in the evidence they receive and they are not aware that they have received only a partial picture of the true nature of risk; 22

34 individuals attribute different meanings to the word risk, which can mean reduced life expectancy, increased probability of death, or probability of death per unit of exposure, greater risk to individuals or to groups of people; and it is difficult for individuals to detect inconsistencies in risk disputes, particularly in those that are conducted at a distance (Cha, 1997, p.17). Laypeople use heuristics to evaluate risks and the heuristics lead them to make judgmental errors; therefore, it has been maintained by some that there are difficulties in regulating risks (Cha, 1997). The heuristics and biases approach has provided a theoretical base for the psychometric paradigm approach to the perception of risk. It results in a better understanding of individually perceived risk, especially as these interact with the environment through cognitive structures. Psychometric Paradigm Studies The origin of the psychometric paradigm is the expressed preferences approach developed by Starr (1969); it was developed as a method of weighting technological risks against benefits in order to answer the fundamental question. Expressed preferences analysis operates upon the assumption that risk perception cannot be reduced to a single number, such as the probability of fatality in a particular instance or a unidimensional risk of fatality rate. By assessing the many attributes of how people might perceive a risk, the expressed preferences approach has demonstrated that people dependably differentiate between risks on the basis of attributes such as familiarity, equity, dread, and mortality rate. The fundamental assumptions of the expressed preferences approach are: perceived risk is predictable and quantifiable; risk means different things to different people; and even though groups disagree about the overall riskiness of specific hazards, they show remarkable agreement when rating those hazards on characteristics of risk, such as controllability, dread, and catastrophic potential (Slovic et al., 1984). These basic assumptions are the foundation of the expressed preferences approach. Much research relating to expressed preferences has been undertaken using the psychometric paradigm (Slovic, 1987). In the expressed preferences approach, questionnaires are used to measure public attitudes about the risks of and benefits from 23