Politics, Risk Perception and Public Policy

Risk

The bulk of my research since arriving at Wilfrid Laurier University has been to investigate the politics of risk perception, particularly in regards to environmental issues. I have completed a project on the politics of the controversial chemical BPA. In one paper, I was able to show that the level of news coverage in state’s daily newspaper about BPA was correlated with the probability that that state would adopt a ban on BPA. In short, politicians adopt policies responding to media pressure. In a second, more qualitative paper, I examined the interaction between legislative provisions, short term interest-group pressure and media attention that led to Canada being the first country in the world to prohibit baby bottles made with BPA.

In the course of this project I was inspired by the work emerging on the cultural cognition of risk perception and the cultural theory of risk. I was awarded a SSHRC Insight Development Grant in 2013 to develop survey measures of the core concepts of cultural theory for the canadian context. Working with Dr. Eric Montpetit and Dr. Erick Lachapelle, I conducted intense qualitative research and survey development to produce these measures. Our first publicadtion from this project can be seen here.

Building on this project, I have been invited to take part in the @risk research project, a SSHRC-funded research project that seeks to find ways to mange the democratic and technocratic tensions managing risks in contemporary Canada.

Publications

Beyond Region and Ideology: Cultural Theory and Risk Perception in Canada
Simon Kiss, Erick Lachapelle & Eric Montpetit
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
Public Opinion Risk
Abstract Citation BibTeX
Copied!
—
Cultural theory (CT) has been widely used to explain variations in risk perception but has rarely been tested in Canada. This contribution represents the most thorough attempt to adapt CT to the Canadian context. Study results suggest that respondents’ commitment to egalitarianism was strongly correlated with risks from technology, while respondents’ commitment to hierarchism was strongly correlated with risks from criminal or unsafe behaviours. Respondents’ commitment to individualism was also correlated with risks from criminal and unsafe behaviours but differed from hierarchism in that individualism was not correlated with risk perceptions from prostitution and marijuana use. Respondents’ commitments to fatalism were strongly correlated with risk perception of vaccines. These conclusions are reinforced by results from a survey question that tests the extent to which such cultural predispositions map onto the myths of nature hypothesized by CT and by a survey experiment that tests how cultural commitments predict perceived risks from a controversial pipeline.
@article{kissRegionIdeologyCultural2020, title = {Beyond {{Region}} and {{Ideology}}: {{Cultural Theory}} and {{Risk Perception}} in {{Canada}}}, author = {Simon Kiss and Erick Lachapelle and Eric Montpetit}, volume = {53}, number = {2}, doi = {doi:10.1017/S0008423920000177}, year = {2020}, month = {apr} }
Opposition to Carbon Pricing and Right-Wing Populism: Ontario's 2018 General Election
Simon Kiss & Erick Lachapelle
Environmental Politics
Public Opinion Risk
Abstract Citation BibTeX
Copied!
—
@article{kissOppositionCarbonPricing2019, title = {Opposition to {{Carbon Pricing}} and {{Right-Wing Populism}}: {{Ontario}}'s 2018 {{General Election}}}, author = {Simon Kiss and Erick Lachapelle}, doi = {10.1080/09644016.2019.1608659}, year = {2019}, month = {apr} }
Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) in Canada: Corporate Ownership, Issue Familiarity, and Cultural Bias
Erick Lachapelle, Simon Kiss & Éric Montpetit
Extractive Industries and Society
Public Opinion Risk
Abstract Citation BibTeX
Copied!
—
@article{lachapellePublicPerceptionsHydraulic2018, title = {Public {{Perceptions}} of {{Hydraulic Fracturing}} ({{Fracking}}) in {{Canada}}: {{Corporate Ownership}}, {{Issue Familiarity}}, and {{Cultural Bias}}}, author = {Erick Lachapelle and Simon Kiss and {\a'E}ric Montpetit}, volume = {5}, number = {4}, doi = {10.1016/j.exis.2018.07.003}, year = {2018}, month = {sep} }
Risk Perception, Psychological Heuristics and the Water Fluoridation Controversy
Andrea ML Perrella & Simon Kiss
Canadian Journal of Public Health
Public Opinion Risk
Abstract Citation BibTeX
Copied!
—
@article{perrellaRiskPerceptionPsychological2015, title = {Risk {{Perception}}, {{Psychological Heuristics}} and the {{Water Fluoridation Controversy}}}, author = {Andrea ML Perrella and Simon Kiss}, volume = {106}, number = {4}, pages = {e197-e203}, doi = {10.17269/cjph.106.4828}, year = {2015}, month = {may} }
Where Did All The Baby Bottles Go? Risk Perception, Interest Groups, Media Coverage and Institutional Imperatives in Canada's Regulation of Bisphenol A
Simon Kiss
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
Risk
Abstract Citation BibTeX
Copied!
—
As part of a multi-year, \$816 million initiative to assess the risks posed by thousands of commonly used chemicals and compounds, Canada became the first country in the world to declare that bisphenol A (BPA) was toxic and justified regulation in April 2008. The process set up to conduct this risk assessment differed from the previous Canadian experience with the regulation of hazardous substances in that it was more formal, systematic and more pluralistic with much greater participation from interest groups. This case study explores the politics and process behind this decision and argues that the government's decision went beyond what scientific evidence could justify. The decision resulted from long-term institutional factors such as the incentive structure of Canadian federalism and values embedded in legislation as well as short-term factors such as media coverage, public opinion and interest group pressure. Grâce à une initiative pluriannuelle de 816 millions de dollars pour examiner les risques posés par l'utilisation courante de milliers de produits et de composés chimiques, le Canada est devenu le premier pays dans le monde à déclarer que le bisphenol A (BPA) est un produit toxique et que de ce fait devrait s'en suivre des régulations quant à son utilisation à partir d'avril 2008. De part le fait que le processus d'évaluation des risques suivi s'est fait sur une base plus formelle, systématique et pluraliste avec davantage de participation de groupes d'intérêt, il diffère de ce que le Canada avait l'habitude en matière de régulation de substances dangereuses. Cette étude de cas examine les politiques et processus qui ont servi à la prise de cette décision et met en avant l'argument qu'en fait le gouvernement ne disposait pas de suffisament de preuves scientifiques pour la justifier. La prise de décision résulterait de l'influence de facteurs institutionnels à long terme tels que des mesures d'incitation du fédéralisme canadien et des valeurs ancrées dans la législation, ainsi que de facteurs à court terme tels que la couverture médiatique, l'opinion publique et la pression des groupes d'intérêt.
@article{kissWhereDidAll2014, title = {Where {{Did All The Baby Bottles Go}}? {{Risk Perception}}, {{Interest Groups}}, {{Media Coverage}} and {{Institutional Imperatives}} in {{Canada}}'s {{Regulation}} of {{Bisphenol A}}}, author = {Simon Kiss}, volume = {47}, number = {4}, eprint = {43298446}, pages = {741--765}, url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/43298446}, year = {2014}, archiveprefix = {jstor}, note = {Last visited on 02/05/2025} }
Legislation by Agenda-Setting: Assessing the Media's Role in the Regulation of Bisphenol A in the U.S. States
Simon Kiss
Mass Communication and Society
Risk
Abstract Citation BibTeX
Copied!
—
@article{kissLegislationAgendaSettingAssessing2013, title = {Legislation by {{Agenda-Setting}}: {{Assessing}} the {{Media}}'s {{Role}} in the {{Regulation}} of {{Bisphenol A}} in the {{U}}.{{S}}. {{States}}}, author = {Simon Kiss}, volume = {16}, number = {5}, pages = {687--712}, doi = {10.1080/15205436.2013.768345}, url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15205436.2013.768345}, year = {2013}, month = {sep}, note = {Last visited on 05/08/2020} }

References

Kiss, Simon. 2013. “Legislation by Agenda-Setting: Assessing the Media’s Role in the Regulation of Bisphenol A in the U.S. States.” Mass Communication and Society 16 (5): 687–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.768345.
Kiss, Simon. 2014a. “Responding to the ’New Public’: The Arrival of Strategic Communications and Managed Participation in Alberta.” Canadian Public Administration 57 (1): 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12053.
Kiss, Simon. 2014b. “Where Did All The Baby Bottles Go? Risk Perception, Interest Groups, Media Coverage and Institutional Imperatives in Canada’s Regulation of Bisphenol A.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 47 (4): 741–65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43298446.
Kiss, Simon, Peter Graefe, and Matt Polacko. 2023. “The Education And Income Voting Divides In Canada And Their Consequences For Redistributive Politics.” Electoral Studies 85 (October). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102648.
Kiss, Simon, and Erick Lachapelle. 2019. “Opposition to Carbon Pricing and Right-Wing Populism: Ontario’s 2018 General Election.” Environmental Politics, ahead of print, April 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1608659.
Kiss, Simon, Erick Lachapelle, and Eric Montpetit. 2020. “Beyond Region and Ideology: Cultural Theory and Risk Perception in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 53 (2). https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0008423920000177.
Kiss, Simon, Andrea Perrella, and Barry Kay. 2014. “How to Win and Lose an Election: Campaign Dynamics of the 2011 Ontario Election.” Canadian Political Science Review 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.24124/c677/2014497.
Kiss, Simon, Karly Rath, and Andrea Perrella. 2018. “Balanced Journalism Amplifies Minority Voices: A Case Study of a Fluoridation Plebiscite.” Canadian Journal of Communication 43 (4). https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2018v43n4a3355.
Lachapelle, Erick, Simon Kiss, and Éric Montpetit. 2018. “Public Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) in Canada: Corporate Ownership, Issue Familiarity, and Cultural Bias.” Extractive Industries and Society 5 (4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2018.07.003.
Perrella, Andrea ML, and Simon Kiss. 2015. “Risk Perception, Psychological Heuristics and the Water Fluoridation Controversy.” Canadian Journal of Public Health 106 (4): e197–203. https://doi.org/10.17269/cjph.106.4828.
Perrella, Andrea ML, Simon Kiss, and Barry J. Kay. 2017. “Triple Play: The Ontario 2014 General Election.” Canadian Political Science Review 11 (1): 157–81. http://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/cpsr/article/view/1461.
Perrella, Andrea, Simon Kiss, and Barry J. Kay. 2020. “Conservative Populism, or Unpopular Liberalism? Review of the 2018 Ontario Provincial Election.” Canadian Political Science Review 14 (1): 118–46. http://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/cpsr/article/view/1790.
Polacko, Matthew, Peter Graefe, and Simon Kiss. 2024. “Subjective Economic Insecurity and Attitudes Toward Immigration and Feminists Among Voters on the Right in Canada.” Social Science Quarterly 105 (2): 281–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13336.
Polacko, Matthew, Peter Graefe, and Simon Kiss. 2025. “Revisiting the Sectoral Cleavage in Canada: Evidence From the Canadian Election Studies.” Canadian Review of Sociology = Revue Canadienne De Sociologie, ahead of print, August 18. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.70014.
Polacko, Matthew, Peter Graefe, and Simon Kiss. 2026. “The Changing Class Basis of Canadian and Social Democratic Futures.” Perspectives, no. 5 (January). https://perspectivesjournal.ca/changing-class-socdem-future/.
Polacko, Matthew, Simon Kiss, and Peter Graefe. 2022. “The Changing Nature of Class Voting in Canada, 1965–2019.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 55 (3): 663–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423922000439.
Wootten, George W., and Simon J. Kiss. 2019. “The Ambiguous Definition of Open Government: Parliamentarians, Journalists and Bloggers Define Open Government In Accordance With Their Interests.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 479–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423918000446.