A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 68, Issue 3-4, 1996, Pages 219-225

  Sjoberg L ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; CULTURAL FACTOR; HUMAN; NUCLEAR SAFETY; PERCEPTION; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOMETRY; RADIATION HAZARD; RISK ASSESSMENT; SWEDEN; VARIANCE;

EID: 0030463872     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a031868     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (39)

1. Sjoberg, L. and Drottz-Sjoberg, B.-M. Risk perception In: Comprehending Radiation Risks. A Report to the IAEA. Eds. B. Lindell et al (Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency) pp. 29-59 (1994).
2. Sjoberg, L. Risk and Society. Studies in Risk Taking and Risk Generation (Hemel Hempstead, England: George Allen and Unwin) (1987).
3. Sjöberg, L. and Winroth, E. Risk Moral Value of Actions, and Mood. Scand. J. Psychol. 27, 191-208 (1986).
4. Starr, C. Social Benefil versus Technological Risk. Science 165, 1232-1238 (1969).
5. Otway, H. J. and Cohen, J. J. Revealed Preferences: Comments on the Srarr Benefit-Risk Relationships (Laxenburg, Austria: IIASA) (1975).
6. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185, 1124-1131 (1974).
7. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. Perception of Risk. Studies of Risk Attitudes, Perceptions and Definitions. RHIZIKON: Studies of Risk and Hazard, Vol. 1 (Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics, Centre for Risk Research) (1991).
8. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sci. 9, 127-152 (1978).
9. Svenson, O. Process Description of Decision Making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 23, 86-112 (1979).
10. Atman, C. J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B. and Morgan, M. G. Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part 1. Risk Anal. 14, 779-788 (1994).
11. Atman, C. J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B. and Morgan, M. G. Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes. Part II. Risk Anal. 14, 789-798 (1994).
12. Sjoberg, L. Strength of Belief and Risk. Policy Sci. 11, 39-57 (1979).
13. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. Lay Foibles and Expert Fables in Judgments about Risk. Am. Stat. 36, 240-255 (1982).
14. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In: Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? Eds R. Schwing and J Albers (New York: Plenum) (1980).
15. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. Characterizing Perceived Risk. In: Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology Eds R. W. Kates, C. Hohenhemser and J. X. Kasperson (Boulder, CO., Westview) pp. 92-125 (1985).
16. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. Rating the Risks. Environment 21(3), 14-20, 36-39 (1979).
17. Hinman, G. W., Rosa, E. A., Kleinhesselink, R. R and Lowinger, T. C. Perception of Nuclear and other Risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Anal. 13, 449-456 (1993).
18. Karpowicz-Lazreg, C. and Mullet, E. Societal Risks as seen by the French Public Risk Anal. 13, 253-258 (1993).
19. Gregory, R. and Mendelsohn, R. Perceived Risk. Dread, and Benefits. Risk Anal. 13, 225-242 (1993).
20. Gardner, G. T. and Gould, L. C. Public Perceptions of the Risk and Benefits of Technology. Risk Anal. 9, 225-242 (1989).
21. Flynn, J , Burns, W., Mertz, C. K. and Slovic, P. Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model. Risk Anal 12, 417-429 (1992).
22. Frewer, J. J., Shepherd, R and Howard, C. What Factors Determine Trust in Information about Technological Hazards? The Society for Risk Analysis: Annual Meeting. 1994.
23. Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. Validation of Cultural Bias in the Context of Risk and Trust Perceptions Associated with Food-related Hazards. Br. Psychol. Soc Abstr. 2, 42 (1993).
24. Slovic, P , Flynn, J. H. and Layman, M. Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste. 254, 1603-1607 (1991).
25. Freudenberg, W. R. Risk and Reactancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions. Social Forces (1993).
26. Dunlap, R E , Kraft, M. E. and Rosa, E. A. (Eds) Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste. (Durham: Duke University Press) (1993).
27. Sjöberg, L. and Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. Risk Perception of Nuclear Waste: Experts and the Public (Centre for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics) (1994).
28. Sandman, P Risk Communication: Facing Public Outrage. US Environ. Prot. Agency J 13, 21-22 (1987).
29. Sandman, P. Hazard versus Outrage in the Public Perception of Risk. In: Effective Risk Communication, Ed. V. T. Covello (New York: Putnam Press) pp. 45-49 (1989).
30. Sandman, P. M. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, VA (1993).
31. Gardner, G. T. and Stem, P. C. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior (Boston, Allyn and Baconi (1996).
32. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) (1982).
33. Wildavsky, A. and Dake, K. Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why? Daedalus 119(4), 41-60 (1990).
34. Sjöberg. L Explaining Risk Perception. An Empirical and Quantitative Evaluation of Cultural Theory (Centre for Risk Research: Stockholm) (1995).
35. Sjöberg, L. Risk Perceptions by Politicians and the Public (Centre for Risk Research: Stockholm) (1996).
36. Sjoberg, L. The Risks of Risk Analysis Acta Psychol. 45, 301-321 (1980)
37. Zajonc, R. B. Feeling and Thinking - Preferences need no Inferences. Am. Psycol. 35, 151-175 (1980).
38. Derbaix, C. and Sjoberg. L Movie Stars in Space. A Comparison of Preference and Similarity Judgments. Int. J. Mark. Res. 11, 261-274 (1994).
39. Sjoberg, L., Derbaix, C. and Jansson, B. Preference and Similarity. Affective and Cognitive Judgment? Scand. J. Psychol. 28, 56-68 (1987).