Perceived risk and tampering with nature

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 353-367

  Sjöberg, Lennart ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000562538     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870050132568     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Boholm, /. (1996) The cultural theory of risk: an anthropological critique, Ethnos 61, 64-84.
3. Boholm, / (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research, Journal of Risk Research 1, 135-63.
4. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982) Risk and Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
5. Drottz-Sjoberg, B.-M. and Persson, L. (1993) Public reaction to radiation: fear, anxiety or phobia? Health Physics 64, 223-31.
6. Drottz-Sjoberg, B.-M. and Sjoberg, L. (1990) Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident, Journal of Environmental Psychology 10, 135-49.
7. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences 9, 127-52.
8. Freudenburg, W.R. (1993) Risk and reactancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions, Social Forces 71, 909-32.
9. Frewer, L. and Lofstedt, R. (1999) Risk perception, social trust, and public participation into strategic decision making-implications for emerging technologies, Ambio 28, 569-74.
10. Gardner, G.T. and Gould, L.C. (1989) Public perceptions of the risk and benefits of technology, Risk Analysis 9, 225-42.
11. Jenkins-Smith, H. (1994) Stigma models: testing hypotheses of how images of Nevada are acquired and values attached to them, Report, Department of Political Science.
12. Marris, C., Langford, I. and O’Riordan, T. (1996). Integrating sociological and psychological approaches to public perceptions of environmental risks: detailed results from a questionnaire study, CSERGE Working Paper No. GEC 96-07, Centre for Social and Economic Research into the Global Environment.
13. Morrall, J.F., III (1986) A review of the record, Regulation, Nov/Dec, 25-34.
14. Palmer, C. (1997) Personal communication.
15. Palmer, C.G.S. (1996) Risk perception: an empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct, Risk Analysis 16, 717-23.
16. Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26, 1427-53.
17. Ramsberg, J. and Sjoberg, L. (1997) The cost-effectiveness of life saving interventions in Sweden, Risk Analysis 17, 467-78.
18. Sandman, P. (1989) Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In V.T. Covello (ed.), Effective Risk Communication, pp. 45-9. New York: Putnam Press.
19. Sandman, P.M. (1993) Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication, Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
20. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991) Ethical dilemmas and radioactive waste: a survey of the issues, Environmental Ethics 13, 327-43.
21. Sjoberg, L. (1992) Psychological reactions to a nuclear accident. In J. Baarli (ed.), Proceedings of a Conference on The Radiological and Radiation Protection Problems in Nordic Regions, Tromso, 21-22 November 1991, Oslo: Nordic Society for Radiation Protection.
22. Sjoberg, L. (1994) Perceived risk vs demand for risk reduction, Rhizikon: Risk Research Report No. 18, Centre for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
23. Sjoberg, L. (1996a) A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception, Radiation Protection Dosimetry 68, 219-25.
24. Sjoberg, L. (1996b) Risk perceptions by politicians and the public, Rhizikon: Risk Research Reports No. 23, Centre for Risk Research.
25. Sjoberg, L. (1997a) Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory, Risk Decision and Policy 2, 113-30.
26. Sjoberg, L. (1997b) Risk sensitivity, attitude and fear as factors in risk perception. In B.-M. Drottz (ed.), Annual Meeting, SRA-Europe, pp. 169-77. Stockholm: Centre for Risk Research.
27. Sjoberg, L. (1998a) Why do people demand risk reduction? In S. Lydersen, G.K. Hansen and A. Sandtorv (eds), ESREL-98: Safety and Reliability, pp. 751-58. Trondheim: A.A. Balkema.
28. Sjoberg, L. (1998b) World views, political attitudes and risk perception, Risk - Health, Safety and Environment 9, 137-52.
29. Sjoberg, L. (1998c) Worry and risk perception, Risk Analysis 18, 85-93.
30. Sjoberg, L. (1999a) Consequences of perceived risk: demand for mitigation, Journal of Risk Research 2, 129-49.
31. Sjoberg, L. (1999b) Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In G. Cvetkovich and R.E. Lofstedt (eds), Social Trust and the Management of Risk, pp. 89-99. London: Earthscan.
32. Sjoberg, L. (in press) Factors in risk perception, Risk Analysis.
33. Sjoberg, L. and Biel, A. (1983) Mood and belief-value correlation, Acta Psychologica 53, 253-70.
34. Sjoberg, L. and Drottz-Sjoberg, B.-M. (1994) Risk perception of nuclear waste: experts and the public, Rhizikon: Risk Research Report No. 16, Centre for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
35. Sjoberg, L. and Winroth, E. (1986) Risk, moral value of actions, and mood, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 27, 191-208.
36. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1985) Characterizing perceived risk. In R.W. Kates, C. Hohenhemser and J.X. Kasperson (eds), Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, pp. 92-125. Boulder, CO: Westview.
37. Teng, O.T., Adams, M.E., Pliskin, J.S., Safran, D.G., Siegel, J.E., Weinstein, M.C. and Graham, J.D. (1995) Five-hundred life saving interventions and their cost effectiveness, Risk Analysis 15, 369-90.
38. Wildavsky, A. and Dake, K.(1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119, 41-60.