My research focuses on people's perceptions of and responses to uncertain threats.
|
The subjective way people think about threats is at the root of many social, political, and environmental issues. Although threats can be objective, such as a severe hurricane, the subjective perception of the threat as legitimate also matters. Some questions I ask in my research include: Why do some people see threat when others don't? Why do some people see some situations and groups as threatening and others don't? When and why do people avoid threatening information? How can we use this knowledge about our responses to threat to address present day issues?
|
Click here for an up-to-date copy of my Vita
|
Judgment and Decision Making Under Severe Weather Threat
Features of forecasted weather events (e.g., wind speed, storm surge, location, and timing) influence how people perceive the event and forecasts about the event. For example, when participants saw a Category 5 warning for a hypothetical hurricane, they predicted the landfalling storm would be severe even if a later warning indicated a downgrade in severity (Losee, Naufel, Locker, & Webster, 2017). In another example, people who saw forecasts for severe (vs. non-severe) weather trusted those forecasts more. They also trusted forecasts more when they were consistent and for weather patterns unfamiliar to the participant (e.g., snow forecasts to a person from Florida; Losee & Joslyn, 2018).
Despite taking severe hypothetical threats more seriously than mild ones, many people in the real world remain unprepared. For example, only 52% of respondents to a FEMA survey reported having supplies for local hazards (FEMA, 2014). Why don’t people prepare for storms that (in theory) they understand to be dangerous threats? I argue that people’s failure to prepare adequately is due to individual and situational factors that influence people’s severe weather judgment and decision-making. Specifically, I examine how personality traits (i.e., Big Five personality, political orientation, impulsivity and sensation-seeking) relate to how different people may see a different level of threat in the same situation--some seeing more and some seeing less (Losee, Smith, & Webster, under editorial review). Social network structure and composition also tend to differ among people and relate to their threat-related decision making. For example, people who have more tightly connected social networks or more dense networks are more likely to prepare for a hurricane than people who have less dense networks (Losee, Webster, & McCarty, in preparation). The situations in which people find themselves such as their previous experience with a threat, their financial resources, and even the structure of their home also set the scene for people's threat perceptions and threat-related decision-making (Losee & Webster, in preparation). For example, people with low (vs. high) income perceived more burden in repairing their home for radon poisoning. Subsequently, perceiving greater burden lead people to be less likely to repair their home and less willing to learn their neighborhood risk for radon poisoning (Losee, Shepperd, & Webster, under editorial review). Link to NSF award summary.
Perceptions of Firearm Threat
People differ not only on whether they own a gun or not, but also on the reasons for owning that gun. My work in this area shows that people who own guns for protection reasons have more positive gun attitudes and are more likely to support loosening gun restrictions than people who own guns for non-protection reasons (Shepperd, Pogge, Losee, Lipsey, & Redford, 2018). Differences in political orientation are also an important predictor of people's gun attitudes and policy positions--with conservatives having more positive attitudes and more support for loosening gun restrictions than liberals (Losee, Pogge, Lipsey, & Shepperd, in preparation). My ongoing work in this area examines why people might support or oppose gun restrictions.
Threat in a Political Context
When political powers shift as they have recently in the United States, some people may feel threatened. My work in this context examines how the threat posed by people with opposing beliefs and values affects behavior like political decision-making. In particular, I examine how individual differences such as authoritarianism interact with threat to influence people's support for authoritarian policies like broad surveillance, violence, and censorship.
Features of forecasted weather events (e.g., wind speed, storm surge, location, and timing) influence how people perceive the event and forecasts about the event. For example, when participants saw a Category 5 warning for a hypothetical hurricane, they predicted the landfalling storm would be severe even if a later warning indicated a downgrade in severity (Losee, Naufel, Locker, & Webster, 2017). In another example, people who saw forecasts for severe (vs. non-severe) weather trusted those forecasts more. They also trusted forecasts more when they were consistent and for weather patterns unfamiliar to the participant (e.g., snow forecasts to a person from Florida; Losee & Joslyn, 2018).
Despite taking severe hypothetical threats more seriously than mild ones, many people in the real world remain unprepared. For example, only 52% of respondents to a FEMA survey reported having supplies for local hazards (FEMA, 2014). Why don’t people prepare for storms that (in theory) they understand to be dangerous threats? I argue that people’s failure to prepare adequately is due to individual and situational factors that influence people’s severe weather judgment and decision-making. Specifically, I examine how personality traits (i.e., Big Five personality, political orientation, impulsivity and sensation-seeking) relate to how different people may see a different level of threat in the same situation--some seeing more and some seeing less (Losee, Smith, & Webster, under editorial review). Social network structure and composition also tend to differ among people and relate to their threat-related decision making. For example, people who have more tightly connected social networks or more dense networks are more likely to prepare for a hurricane than people who have less dense networks (Losee, Webster, & McCarty, in preparation). The situations in which people find themselves such as their previous experience with a threat, their financial resources, and even the structure of their home also set the scene for people's threat perceptions and threat-related decision-making (Losee & Webster, in preparation). For example, people with low (vs. high) income perceived more burden in repairing their home for radon poisoning. Subsequently, perceiving greater burden lead people to be less likely to repair their home and less willing to learn their neighborhood risk for radon poisoning (Losee, Shepperd, & Webster, under editorial review). Link to NSF award summary.
Perceptions of Firearm Threat
People differ not only on whether they own a gun or not, but also on the reasons for owning that gun. My work in this area shows that people who own guns for protection reasons have more positive gun attitudes and are more likely to support loosening gun restrictions than people who own guns for non-protection reasons (Shepperd, Pogge, Losee, Lipsey, & Redford, 2018). Differences in political orientation are also an important predictor of people's gun attitudes and policy positions--with conservatives having more positive attitudes and more support for loosening gun restrictions than liberals (Losee, Pogge, Lipsey, & Shepperd, in preparation). My ongoing work in this area examines why people might support or oppose gun restrictions.
Threat in a Political Context
When political powers shift as they have recently in the United States, some people may feel threatened. My work in this context examines how the threat posed by people with opposing beliefs and values affects behavior like political decision-making. In particular, I examine how individual differences such as authoritarianism interact with threat to influence people's support for authoritarian policies like broad surveillance, violence, and censorship.
