Publications
Simon Kiss, Erick Lachapelle & Eric Montpetit
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
Public Opinion
Risk
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}
}
Simon Kiss & Erick Lachapelle
Environmental Politics
Environmental Politics
Public Opinion
Risk
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}
}
Erick Lachapelle, Simon Kiss & Éric Montpetit
Extractive Industries and Society
Extractive Industries and Society
Public Opinion
Risk
Copied!
—
New applications of hydraulic fracturing (HF) methods to release natural gas from shale deposits have emerged as a hotly contested political issue. Consequently, researchers commonly seek to identify factors shaping public perceptions of this technology. While research conducted in North America has focused primarily on the United States, this paper contributes to a growing body of work examining Canadian perceptions toward HF. We build on the existing regionally-focused literature on public perceptions of HF in Canada with an analysis of data collected from a nationally-representative (n = 2012) survey of attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing administered to the adult Canadian population in 2016. We find that an individual’s cultural biases are strong predictors of their attitudes toward hydraulic fracturing, and that these effects are moderated by levels of issue familiarity. Analysis of an embedded survey experiment further reveals that attitudes in Canada are somewhat affected by cues regarding the developer’s status (i.e. whether a Canadian, American or government-owned corporation), and that a nationalist bias is especially prominent among people with hierarchical predispositions. We further find that familiarity with hydraulic fracturing is associated with significantly less support, and that this relationship is moderated by a respondent’s region of residence. We discuss these findings in light of the existing literature and outline areas for future research.
@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}
}
Andrea ML Perrella & Simon Kiss
Canadian Journal of Public Health
Canadian Journal of Public Health
Public Opinion
Risk
Copied!
—
Objectives: Increasingly, support for water fluoridation has come under attack. We seek an explanation, focusing on the case of Waterloo, Ontario, where a 2010 referendum overturned its water fluoridation program. In particular, we test whether individuals perceive the risks of water fluoridation based not on ‘hard’ scientific evidence but on heuristics and cultural norms. Methods: A sample of 376 residents in Waterloo were surveyed in June 2012 using random digit dialing. We use factor analysis, OLS regression, as well as t-tests to evaluate a survey experiment to test the credibility hypothesis. Results: Perceptions of fluoride as a risk are lower among those who perceive fluoride’s benefits (B = .473, p {$<$} 0.001) and those whose cultural view is ‘egalitarian’ (B = .156, p {$<$} 0.05). The experiment shows a lower level of perception of fluoride’s benefits among respondents who are told that water fluoridation is opposed by a national advocacy group (Group A) compared to those who are told that the government and the World Health Organization support fluoridation (Group B) (t = 1.6547, p {$<$} 0.05), as well as compared to the control group (t = 1.8913, p {$<$} 0.05). There is no difference between Group B and the control, possibly because people’s already general support for fluoridation is less prone to change when told that other public organizations also support fluoridation. Conclusion: Public health officials should take into account cultural norms and perceptions when individuals in a community appear to rise up against water fluoridation, with implications for other public health controversies.
@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}
}
Simon Kiss
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
Risk
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}
}
Simon Kiss
Mass Communication and Society
Mass Communication and Society
Risk
Copied!
—
Starting in 2008, debate about potential hazardous effects from exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) migrated from the pages of scientific journals to the U.S. media, regulatory authorities, and state legislatures. In the context of deep scientific conflict about the existence of adverse health effects attributable to BPA, this article asks why it was the case that some state legislatures considered or adopted legislative bans on products made from BPA, whereas others did not. Drawing on existing theories of agenda-setting and policy change via punctuated equilibrium as well as a well-defined methodology (event history analysis), evidence of agenda-setting is presented. Particularly, it is argued that routine and high-impact health coverage was significantly related to the chance that a state legislature considered legislation banning products made with BPA. This was indirectly, but importantly, related to the actual adoption by state legislatures of legislative bans on products made with BPA.
@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}
}