Risk and the subjectivity of preference

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 225-242

  Campbell, Scott ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Expected utility; Harm; Objective; Preference; Risk analysis; Subjective

Indexed keywords

RESEARCH; RISK PERCEPTION;

EXPECTED UTILITY; HARM; OBJECTIVE; PREFERENCE; RISK ANALYSIS; SUBJECTIVE;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 33646452423     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870600603147     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Adams, J. (1995) Risk (London: UCL Press).
2. Adams, A. M. and Smith, A. F. (2001) Risk Perception and communication: recent developments and implications for anaesthesia, Anaesthesia, 56, pp. 745-755.
3. Aven, T. and Kørte, J. (2003) On the use of risk and decision analysis to support decision-making, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 79(3), pp. 289-299.
4. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, trans. Mark Ritter (London: Sage).
5. Brunk, C., Haworth, L. and Lee, B. (1991) Is a scientific assessment of risk possible? Value assumptions in the Canadian Alachor Controversy, Dialogue, 30, pp. 235-247.
6. Campbell, S. (2005) Determining overall risk, Journal of Risk Research, 8(7-8), pp. 569-581.
7. Campbell, S. and Currie, G. (forthcoming) Against Beck: in defence of risk analysis, Philosophy of the Social Sciences.
8. Finkel, A. M. (1996) Comparing risks thoughtfully, Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 7(4), pp. 361-384.
9. Fischhoff, B. (1995) Ranking risks, Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 6, pp. 189-200.
10. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S. R. and Hope, C. (1984) Defining risk, Policy Sciences, 17, pp. 123-139.
11. Gibson, S. B. (1976) Risk criteria in hazard analysis, Chemical Engineering Progress, 72(2), pp. 59-62.
12. Giere, R. N. (1991) Knowledge, values, and technological decisions: a decision theoretic approach, in: D. G. Mayo & R. D. Hollander (Eds) Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, pp. 183-203 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press).
13. Graham, J. D. and Richardson, E. (1995) Ranking risk inequities, Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 6, pp. 359-372.
14. Graham, J. D. and Vaupel, J. W. (1981) Value of a life: what difference does it make?, Risk Analysis, 1(1), pp. 89-95.
15. Hansson, B. (1975) The appropriateness of the expected utility model, Erkenntnis, 9, pp. 175-193.
16. Hansson, S. O. (1996) What is philosophy of risk?, Theoria, 62, pp. 169-186.
17. Hansson, S. O. (2004) Philosophical perspectives on risk, Techné, 8(1), pp. 10-35.
18. Kaplan, S. and Garrick, B. J. (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk, Risk Analysis, 1(1), pp. 11-27.
19. Lowrance, W. W. (1976) Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety (Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann).
20. Potter, M. E. (1996) Risk assessment terms and definitions, Journal of Food Protection, Supplement, pp. 6-9.
21. Reissland, J. and Harries, V. (1979) A scale for measuring risks, Heiv Scientist, 13, pp. 809-811.
22. Renn, O. (1998) Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and challenges, Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), pp. 49-71.
23. Rescher, N. (1983) Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management (Washington, DC: University Press of America).
24. Rowe, W. (1977) An Anatomy of Risk (New York: John Wiley).
25. Royal Society Study Group Report (1992) Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management (London: The Royal Society).
26. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1991) Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
27. Slovic, P. (1991) Beyond numbers: a broader perspective on risk perception and risk communication, in: D. G. Mayo & R. D. Hollander (Eds) Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, pp. 48-65 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press).
28. Slovic, P. (1992) Perceptions of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm, in: S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds) Theories of Risk, pp. 117-152 (Westport, CT: Praeger).
29. Slovic, P. (1998) The risk game, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, pp. 73-77.
30. Slovic, P. (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield, Risk Analysis, 19(4), pp. 689-701.
31. Thompson, P. (1986) The philosophical foundations of risk, Southern Journal of Philosophy, 24(2), pp. 273-286.
32. Thompson, P. (1987) Collective action and the analysis of risk, Public Affairs Quarterly, 1(3), pp. 23-42.
33. Thompson, P. (1990) Risk objectivism and risk subjectivism, Risk: Issues in Health & Safety, 1(Winter), pp. 3-22.
34. Thompson, P. (1992) Reply to Valverde, Risk: Issues in Health & Safety, 3, pp. 49ff.
35. Thompson, P. and Wesley, D. (1996) Competing conceptions of risk, Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 7(4), pp. 361-384.
36. Troche, C. J., Paltiel, A. D. and Makuch, R. W. (2000) Evaluation of therapeutic strategies: a new method for balancing risk and benefit, Value in Health, 3(1), pp. 12-22.
37. Valverde, L. J. A. Jr. (1991) The cognitive status of risk: a response to Thompson, Risk: Issues in Health & Safety, 2, pp. 313ff.
38. Watson, S. R. (1981) On risks and acceptability, Journal of the Society for Radiological Protection, 1 (4), pp. 21-25.