Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given

Policy Sciences

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 379-400

  Sjöberg, Lennart ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK PERCEPTION; TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION;

ATTITUDE; HAZARD; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0036968268     PISSN: 00322687     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021354900928     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Bauer. M., J. Durant and G. Evans (1994). 'European public perceptions of science,' International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6(2): 163-186.
2. Brenot, J., S. Bonnefous and C. Mays (1996). 'Cultural theory and risk perception: Validity and utility explored in the French context,' Radiation Protection Dosimetry 68: 239-243.
3. Buss, D. M. and K. H. Craik (1983). 'Contemporary worldviews: Personal and policy implications,' Journal of Applied Social Psychology 13: 259-280.
4. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). 'Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests,' Psychometrika 16: 297 334.
5. Dake, K. (1990). Technology on trial. Orienting dispositions toward environmental and health hazards. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
6. Dake, K. (1991). 'Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk,' Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22: 61-82.
7. Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
8. Einsiedel, E. F. (1994). 'Mental maps of science - knowledge and attitudes among Canadian adults,' International Journal of Public Opinion Research 6(l): 35-44.
9. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read and B. Combs (1978). 'How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits,' Policy Sciences 9: 127-152.
10. Gardner, G. T. and L. C. Gould (1989). 'Public perceptions of the risk and benefits of technology,' Risk Analysis 9: 225-242.
11. Hill, R., M. Stanisstreet, E. Boyes and H. O'Sullivan (1998). 'Reactions to a new technology: Students' ideas about genetically engineered foodstuffs,' Research in Science & Technological Education 16(2): 203-216.
12. Hu, P. J., P. Y. K. Chau, O. R. L. Sheng and K. Y. Tam (1999). 'Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology,' Journal of Management Information Systems 16(2): 91-112.
13. Lee, C. F., B. Hazard and F. G. Yang (1994). 'Actions, attitudes, and perceptions regarding 6 technologies,' Journal of Social Psychology 134(4): 511-527.
14. Martin, B. (1989). 'The sociology of the fluoridation controversy: A reexamination,' The Sociology Quarterly 30: 59-76.
15. Meffe, G. K. (1992). 'Technoarrogance and halfway technologies - salmon hatcheries on the Pacific coast of North-America,' Conservation Biology 6(3): 350-354.
16. Mitchell, V.-M. (1999). 'Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models,' European Journal of Marketing 33(112): 163-195.
17. Nagai, Y. and C. Hayashi (2000). 'Structure and intensity of public attitudes toward nuclear power generation,' Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 37(9): 729-739.
18. Nelson, C. H. (2001). 'Risk perception, behavior, and consumer response to genetically modified organisms: Toward understanding American and European public reaction,' American Behavioral Scientist 44(8):1371-1388.
19. Peters, E. and P. Slovic (1996). 'The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power,' Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26: 1427-1453.
20. Sandman, P. M. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. Fairfax, Va.: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
21. Shanahan, J., D. Scheufele and E. Lee (2001). 'Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms,' Public Opinion Quarterly 65(2): 267-281.
22. Shelvin, M., J. N. V. Miles, M. N. O. Davies and S. Walker (1999). 'Coefficient alpha: A useful indicator of reliability?' Personality and Individual Differences 28: 229-237.
23. Siegrist, M. (1999). 'A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology,' Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29: 2093-2106.
24. Siegrist, M. (2000). 'The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology,' Risk Analysis?
25. Siegrist, M., G. Cvetkovich and C. Roth (2000). 'Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/ benefit perception,' Risk Analysis 20: 353-362.
26. Sjöberg, L. (1979). 'Strength of belief and risk,' Policy Sciences 11: 39-57.
27. Sjöberg, L. (1996a). 'A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and Cultural Theory approaches to risk perception,' Radiation Protection Dosimetry 68: 219-225.
28. Sjöberg, L. (1996b). Risk perceptions by politicians and the public (Rhizikon: Risk Research Reports 23). Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.
29. Sjöberg, L. (1997), 'Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory,' Risk Decision and Policy 2: 113-130.
30. Sjöberg, L. (1998). 'World views, political attitudes and risk perception,' Risk-Health, Safety and Environment 9: 137-152.
31. Sjöberg, L. (1999a). 'Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation,' Journal of Risk Research 2: 129-149.
32. Sjöberg, 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. London: Earthscan, pp. 89-99.
33. Sjöberg, L. (1999c), 'Risk perception in Western Europe,' Ambio 28: 543-549.
34. Sjöberg, L. (2000a). 'Consequences matter. "risk" is marginal,' Journal of Risk Research 3(3): 287-295.
35. Sjöberg, L. (2000b). 'The different dynamics of personal and general risk,' in M. P. Cottam, D. W. Harvey, R. P. Pape and J. Tait, eds., Foresight and precaution, Volume 1. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, pp. 1149-1155.
36. Sjöberg, L. (2000c). 'Perceived risk and tampering with nature,' Journal of Risk Research 3: 353-367.
37. Sjöberg, L. (2001a). 'Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust,' Risk Analysis 21: 189-198.
38. Sjöberg, L. (2001b). 'Political decisions and public risk perception,' Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 72: 115-124.
39. Sjöberg, L. (2001c). 'Whose risk perception should influence decisions?' Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety 72: 149-152.
40. Sjöberg, L. (in press-a). 'Are received risk perception models alive and well?' Risk Analysis.
41. Sjöberg, L. (in press-b). 'Distal factors in risk perception,' Journal of Risk Research.
42. Sjöberg, L. and A. af Wahlberg (1996). Sandsjöolyckan. (The accident at Sandsjö (Rhizikon: Rapport från Centrum för Riskforskning 6). Stockholm: Centrum för Riskforskning.
43. Sjöberg, L., A. af Wåhlberg and P. Kvist (1998). 'The rise of risk: Risk related bills submitted to the Swedish parliament in 1964-65 and 1993 95,' Journal of Risk Research 1: 191-195.
44. Sjöberg, L. and J. Fromm (2001). 'Information technology risks as seen by the public,' Risk Analysis 21: 427-442.
45. Sjöberg, L., B. Jansson, J. Brenot, L. Frewer, A. Prades and A. Tōnnesen (2000). Radiation risk perception in commemoration of Chernobyl. A cross-national study in three waves (Rhizikon: Risk Research Report 33). Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.
46. Slovic, P. (1987), 'Perception of risk,' Science 236: 280-285.
47. Slovic, P., J. H. Flynn and M. Layman (1991). 'Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste,' Science 254: 1603-1607.
48. Slovic, P., M. Layman and J. Flynn (1991). 'Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain,' Environment 33: 6-11, 28-30.
49. Slovic, P. and E. Peters (1998). 'The importance of worldviews in risk perception,' Risk Decision and Policy 3(2): 165-170.
50. Starr, C. (1969). 'Social benefit versus technological risk,' Science 165: 1232-1238.
51. Truedsson, J. and L. Sjöberg (2000). 'Information technology and risk perception in Swedish society,' in M. P. Cottam, D. W. Harvey, R. P. Pape and J. Tait, eds., Foresight and precaution. Volume 1. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, pp. 49-56.
52. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1974). 'Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,' Science 185: 1124-1131.
53. Wildavsky, A. and K. Dake (1990). 'Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?' Daedalus 119(4): 41 60.