# Question Order Effects in Multidimensional Risk Perception Measurement

## TL;DR

This study shows that the order of questions in risk perception surveys affects responses, with general risk ratings being influenced by specific dimensions.

## Contribution

The study reveals asymmetrical question order effects in multidimensional risk perception and how cognitive sophistication influences these effects.

## Key findings

- General risk ratings assimilate to preceding specific dimension ratings when asked after them.
- Severity and susceptibility ratings are influenced by preceding affect and exposure questions, respectively.
- Higher analytical thinking individuals show stronger order effects for general risk questions.

## Abstract

This study examines how question order influences responses in multidimensional risk perception measurement. Through a randomized between‐subjects experiment (N = 1352) manipulating the sequence of risk perception dimensions, we identified systematic question order effects. When a general risk question followed specific dimensional questions, responses showed significant assimilation effects (i.e., general risk aligned more closely with preceding specific dimension ratings). Consequence dimension responses (severity, affect) showed assimilation effects when preceded by probability dimensions (exposure, susceptibility), while probability dimensions remained stable regardless of ordering. Within subdimensions, severity ratings were influenced by preceding affect questions, and susceptibility ratings were influenced by preceding exposure questions, both displaying assimilation patterns. Testing how individual differences in cognitive sophistication moderate susceptibility to order effects, contrary to our predictions, we found that individuals higher in analytical thinking style demonstrated stronger order effects for general risk questions than those lower in analytical thinking. These findings reveal an asymmetrical pattern where judgments requiring more analytic specificity tend to anchor evaluations that are relatively global, affective, or self‐focused.