Such irrational risk assessment has practical implications, the scientists note. Most obviously, disaster warnings would be much more effective if they emphasized actual distance rather than abstract political demarcations. Tornadoes and hurricanes and other perilous weather formations do not honor state lines. But in addition, citizens would be able to make better decisions about insurance coverage if they were given more meaningful information about the proximity of risk. Finally, citizen activism could be more rationally organized. Oftentimes residents will protest toxic waste dumps and other health threats only within their state borders, feeling immune to identical risks that are in neighboring states but even closer by. Understanding border bias could lead to more sensible and effective citizenship.

This article was originally published with the title Border Bias.

5 Comments

1. 1. sjn 11:15 AM 2/21/11

   Lots of claims, no data. How many people, how many changed perception of risk, etc etc?
   You know the drill, you can't evaluate how meaningful any of these claims are based on this articles complete lack of any statistics

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. mikeorgan1955 04:58 PM 2/21/11

   Thought this article interesting but full of obvious false assumptions. first what about the effect of tribalism or other physcolocial effects. Borders are significant in many more ways than just as a way of catorgorizing or orientation, there is the obvious factor of Nationalism (I know they are all amercians and American States but you would be supprised how even supporting a different sporting team can make us tribalistic). So if this kind of research can have any value at all, surely it has to be more rigerous and the experiments more robust.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. ramesam 08:17 PM 2/21/11

   The assessment of "fear" from an event will also depend on the reliable and 'familiar' backup structure available to a person.
   
   The State laws and regulations, insurance premia and even school districts, child welfare schemes, known medical doctors and hospitals etc etc. too influence our choices when posed with threats. So inhabitants of a State are likely to choose something familiar to them in terms of legal and other such State structures in case of risk and may have nothing to do with the political boundaries!!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. UofUResearch 01:02 PM 2/23/11

   If you're interested in more research that the University of Utah is doing, be sure to check us out on Twitter and Facebook
   
   www.twitter.com/UofUResearch
   www.facebook.com/findaresearcher

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. iWind in reply to sjn 08:35 AM 2/26/11

   I suggest you take a look at the referenced scientific article. You know the drill, read (serious) popular science magazines for the news and overviews, check the sources for data and detailed analysis. You shouldn't evaluate scientific research based on secondary reporting.
   
   That said, the headline first made me think of entirely different borders, the imaginary borders we put up in our heads between safe and risky behaviour, such as crossing a road. When do we think it's safe, and when do we think it's risky (or very risky), why, and how well does it correlate with the actual risk.
   
   But that's a different issue.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this