Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile

Risk Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 1271-1285

  Bronfman, Nicolás C ^a   Cifuentes, Luis A ^a  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Developing countries; Environmental risks; Psychometric paradigm; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

HAZARDS; HEALTH RISKS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SURVEYS;

PSYCHOMETRIC PARADIGM;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; RISK PERCEPTION;

CHILE; CONFERENCE PAPER; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; HEALTH HAZARD; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; POPULATION RISK; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL ASPECT; STATISTICAL MODEL; VARIANCE;

CHILE; SOUTH AMERICA;

EID: 0346422413     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00400.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165, 1232-1238.
2. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
3. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers Jr. (Eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? (pp. 181-216) New York: Plenum Press.
4. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. American Statistician, 36(3), 240-255
5. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichteinstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, & J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
6. Lowrance, W. (1976). Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. Los Altos: W. Kaufman.
7. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
8. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (1997). Risk perception and communication. In R. Detels, W. W. Holland, J. McEwen, & G. S. Omenn (Eds.), Oxford Textbook of Public Health, Vol. 2 (pp. 987-1002) New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. In Risk, Society and Policy Series. London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
10. Renn, O. (1998). Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 49-71.
11. Hinman, G. W., Rosa, E. A., Kleinhesselink, R. R., & Lowinger, T. C. (1993). Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis, 13, 449-455.
12. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1994). Gender, race and environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.
13. Poumadere, M., Mays, C., Slovic, P., Flynn, J., & Johnson S. (1995). What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option. In Proceedings of an International Conference on the Nuclear Power Option, pp. 393-405. Vienna.
14. Karpowicz-Lazerg, C., & Mullet, E. (1993). Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis, 13, 253-258
15. Kleinhesselink, R., & Rosa, E. (1991). Cognitive representations of risk perceptions: A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 11-28.
16. Nyland, L. G. (1993). Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. RHIZIKON: Risk Research Report No. 15. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
17. Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., & Slovic, P. (1988). Societal risks as seen by the Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 1, 111-130.
18. Rohrmann, B. (1994). Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparison. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 150-163.
19. Eiser, J. R., Hannover, B., Mann, L., Morin, M., Van der Pligt, J., & Webley, P. (1990). Nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl: A cross-national study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 101-110.
20. Bastide, S., Moatti, J.-P., Pages, J.-P., & Fagnani, F. (1989). Risk perception and the social acceptability of technologies: The French case. Risk Analysis, 9, 215-223.
21. Cvetkovich, G. T., & Earle, T. C. (1992). Environmental hazards and the public. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 1-20.
22. Englander, T., Farago, K., & Slovic, P. (1986). Comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social Behavior, 1, 55-66.
23. Fife-Schaw, C., & Rowe, G. (1996). Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: A psychometric study. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 487-499.
24. Raats, M. M., & Shephered, R. (1996). Developing a subject-derived terminology to describe perceptions of chemicals in foods. Risk Analysis, 16(2), 133-146.
25. Goszczynska, M., Tyszka, T., & Slovic, P. (1991). Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 4, 179-193.
26. Keown, C. F. (1989). Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans. Risk Analysis, 9(3), 401-405.
27. Lazo, J. K., Kinnell, J. C., & Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 179-193.
28. McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., Cavanagh, N. S., & Slovic, P. (1997). Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 17(3), 341-352.
29. McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., & Slovic, P. (1996). Perceived ecological risks of global change: A psychometric comparison of causes and consequences. Global Environmental Change, 6(2), 159-171.
30. Marris, C., Langford, I. H., & O'Riordan, T. (1998). A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18(5), 635-647.
31. Marris, C., Langford, I., Saunderson, T., & O'Riordan, T. (1997). Exploring the "psychometric paradigm": Comparison between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis, 17(3), 303-312.
32. Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 1-11.
33. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362.
34. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195-203.
35. Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096.
36. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. In R. E. Löfstedt (Ed.), The Perception of Risk. Risk, Society and Policy Series (pp. 413-429). London, Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
37. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.