Cognitive and affective components of the judgment of environmental risks;Kognitive und effektive komponenten der bewertung von umweltrisiken

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 45, Issue 4-1, 1998, Pages 334-344

  Karger, Cornelia R ^a   Wiedemann, Peter M ^a  

^a FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JÜLICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Environmental risks; Psychometric paradigm; Risk judgments

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; POLLUTION; PSYCHOMETRY; RISK;

ADULT; ENVIRONMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PSYCHOMETRICS; RISK;

EID: 0032239472     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E. & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Borcherding, B., Rohrmann, B. & Eppel, T. (1986). A psychological study on the cognitive structure of risk evaluations. In B. Brehmer, H. Jungermann, P. Lourens & G. Sévon (Eds.), New directions in research on decision making (pp. 245-262). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
3. Bortz, J. (1993). Statistik. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
4. Brun, W. (1994). Risk perception: main issues, approaches and findings. In G. Wright & P Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability (pp. 295-320). Chichester: John Wiley.
5. Drottz-Sjöberg, B. M. (1991). Perception of risk. Studies of risk attitudes, perceptions and definitions. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics, Gotab, Stockholm.
6. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Science, 9, 127-152.
7. Gardner, G. T. & Gould, L. C. (1989). Public perception of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 9 (2), 225-242.
8. Harding, C. M. & Eiser, J. R. (1984). Characterising the perceived risks and benefits of some health issues. Risk Analysis, 4 (2), 131-141.
9. Hohenemser, C., Kaperson, R. E. & Kates, R. W. (1985). Causal structure. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser & J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology (pp. 25-42). Boulder, CO: Westview.
10. Holtgrave, D. R. & Weber, E. U. (1993). Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. Risk Analysis, 13 (5), 553-558.
11. Jungermann, H. (1993). Risiko. In Schütz, H. & Wiedemann, P. M. (Hrsg.), Technik kontrovers (S. 175-186). Frankfurt: IMK.
12. Jungermann, H. & Slovic, P. (1993). Characteristics of individual risk perception. In Bayerische Rück (Hrsg.), Risiko ist ein Konstrukt (S. 89-107). München: Knesebeck.
13. Karger, C. R. & Wiedemann, P. M. (1996), Forschungszentrum Jülich, Programmgruppe Mensch, Umwelt, Technik. Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation, Heft 59.
14. Kuyper, H. & Vlek, C. (1984). Contrasting risk judgments among interest groups. Acta Psychologica, 56, 205-218.
15. Kraus, N. N. & Slovic, P. (1988). Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: modelling individual and group perceptions within homogenous hazard domains. Risk Analysis, 8 (3), 435-455.
16. Krimsky, S. (1992). The role of theory in risk studies. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 3-22). Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger.
17. Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
18. Lazarus, R. S. & Launier, R. (1981). Stressbezogene Transaktionen zwischen Person und Umwelt. In J. Nitsch (Hrsg.), Stress - Theorien. Untersuchungen, Maßnahmen (S. 391-440). Bern: Huber.
19. Marris, C., Langford, J., Saunderson, T. & O'Riordan, T. (1997). Risk Analysis, 17 (3), 303-312.
20. McDaniels, T., Axelrod L. & Slovic, P. (1995). Characterizing perception of ecological risk. Risk Analysis, 15 (5), 575-609.
21. Renn, O. (1998). Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 49-71.
22. Ruff, F. M. (1990). Ökologische Krise und Risikobewußtsein. Zur psychischen Verarbeitung von Umweltbelastungen. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.
23. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception on risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
24. Slovic, P (1992). Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117- 152). Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger,
25. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal risk assessment. How safe is safe enough? (pp. 181-214). New York: Plenum Press.
26. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous Progress. Managing the hazards of technology (pp. 91-125). Westview Press: Boulder and London.
27. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. (1986). The psychometric study of risk perception. In V. T. Covello, J. Menkes & J. Manpower (Eds.), Risk evaluation and management (pp. 3-24). Plenum Publishing Corporation.
28. Slovic, P., Kraus, N. N., Lappe, H., Letzel, H. & Malmfors, T. (1989). Risk perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Sweden. Pharmaceutical Medicine, 4, 43-65.
29. Tyler, T. R. & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, (4), 693-708.