Accounting for variation in the explanatory power of the psychometric paradigm: The effects of aggregation and focus

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 527-554

  Bronfman, Nicolás C ^a   Cifuentes, Luis Abdón ^b   Dekay, Michael L ^c   Willis, Henry H ^d  

^a UNIVERSIDAD ANDRÉS BELLO   (Chile)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Aggregation; Level of analysis; Principal component analysis; Psychometric paradigm; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

PSYCHOMETRIC DIMENSIONS; PSYCHOMETRIC PARADIGMS;

DATA REDUCTION; ECOLOGY; HAZARDS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 34547246985     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870701315872     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Arabie, P. and Maschmeyer, C. (1988) Some current models for the perception and judgment of risk, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, pp. 300-329.
2. Barnett, J. and Breakwell, G. M. (2001) Risk perception and experience: hazard personality profiles and individual differences, Risk Analysis, 21(1), pp. 171-177.
3. Bastide, S., Moatti, J.-P., Pages, J.-P. and Fagnani, F. (1989) Risk perception and the social acceptability of technologies: the French case, Risk Analysis, 9(2), pp. 215-223.
4. Böhm, G. (2003) Emotional reactions to environmental risks: consequential versus ethical evaluation, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, pp. 199-212.
5. Böhm, G. and Pfister, H. R. (2000) Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks, Acta Psychologica, 104, pp. 312-337.
6. Boholm, A. (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research, Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), pp. 135-163.
7. Bouyer, M., Bagdassarian, S., Chaabanne, S. and Mullet, E. (2001) Personality correlates of risk perception, Risk Analysis, 21, pp. 457-465.
8. Bronfman, N. C. and Cifuentes, L. A. (2003) Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile, Risk Analysis, 23(6), pp. 1271-1285.
9. Brown, T. C., Peterson, G. L., Brodersen, R. M., Ford, V. and Bell, P. A. (2005) The judged seriousness of an environmental loss is a matter of what caused it, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, pp. 13-21.
10. Bulte, E., Gerking, S., List, J. A. and De Zeeuw, A. (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49, pp. 330-342.
11. Dake, K. (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), pp. 61-82.
12. DeKay, M. L., Florig, H. K., Fischbeck, P. S., Morgan, M. G., Morgan, K. M. and Fischhoff, B., et al. (2001) The use of public risk ranking in regulatory development, in: P. S. Fischbeck &C R. S. Farrow (Eds) Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health, and Safety, pp. 208-230 (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future).
13. DeKay, M. L. and McClelland, G. H. (1996) Probability and utility components of endangered species preservation programs, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, pp. 60-83.
14. Dosman, D. M., Adamowicz, W. L. and Hrudey, S. E. (2001) Socioeconomic determinants of health - and food safety-related risk perceptions, Risk Analysis, 21(2), pp. 307-317.
15. Eiser, J. R., Hannover, B., Mann, L., Morin, M., Van der Pligt, J. and Webley, P. (1990) Nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl: a cross-national study, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, pp. 101-110.
16. Englander, T., Farago, K. and Slovic, P. (1986) Comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States, Social Behavior, 1, pp. 55-66.
17. Fife-Schaw, C. and Rowe, G. (1996) Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study, Risk Analysis, 16(4), pp. 487-499.
18. Fife-Schaw, C. and Rowe, G. (2000) Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations, Journal of Risk Research, 3(2), pp. 167-179.
19. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and 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).
20. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1982) Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk, The American Statistician, 36(3), pp. 240-255.
21. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences, 9, pp. 127-152.
22. Florig, H. K., Morgan, M. G., Morgan, K. M., Jenni, K. E., Fischhoff, B. and Fischbeck, P. S., et al. (2001) A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): overview and test-bed development, Risk Analysis, 21(5), pp. 913-921.
23. Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C. K. (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks, Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp. 1101-1108.
24. Gardner, G. T. and Gould, L. C. (1989) Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology, Risk Analysis, 9(2), pp. 225-242.
25. Gardner, G. T., Tiemann, A. R., Gould, L. R., DeLuca, D. R., Doob, L. W. and Stolwijk, J. A. J. (1982) Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power, Journal of Social Psychology, 116, pp. 179-197.
26. Goszczynska, M., Tyszka, T. and Slovic, P. (1991) Risk perception in Poland: a comparison with three other countries, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, pp. 179-193.
27. Harding, C. M. and Eiser, J. R. (1984) Characterizing the perceived risks and benefits of some health issues, Risk Analysis, 4, pp. 131-141.
28. Hermand, D., Karsenty, S., Py, Y., Guillet, L., Chauvin, B. and Simeone, A., et al. (2003) Risk target: an interactive context factor in risk perception, Risk Analysis, 23(4), pp. 821-828.
29. Hinman, G. W., Rosa, E. A., Kleinhesselink, R. R. and Lowinger, T. C. (1993) Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States, Risk Analysis, 13, pp. 449-455.
30. Irwin, J. R., Jones, L. E. and Mundo, D. (1996) Risk perception and victim perception: the judgment of HIV cases, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, pp. 1-22.
31. Jenni, K. E. (1997) Attributes for risk evaluation, PhD dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
32. Jianguang, Z. (1994) Environmental hazards in the Chinese public's eyes, Risk Analysis, 14(2), pp. 163-167.
33. Jones, K. and Klien, H. (1999) Lessons from 12 years of comparative risk projects, Annual Review of Public Health, 20, pp. 159-172.
34. Kahneman, D. and Ritov, I. (1994) Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: a study of the headline method, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, pp. 5-38.
35. Karpowicz-Lazerg, C. and Mullet, E. (1993) Societal risk as seen by the French public, Risk Analysis, 13, pp. 253-258.
36. Keown, C. F. (1989) Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans, Risk Analysis, 9(3), pp. 401-405.
37. Kiers, H. A. L. and Van Mechelen, I. (2001) Three-way component analysis: principles and illustrative application, Psychological Methods, 6, pp. 84-110.
38. Kleinhesselink, R. and Rosa, E. (1991) Cognitive representations of risk perceptions: a comparison of
39. Japan and the United States, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), pp. 11-28.
40. Kraus, N. N. and Slovic, P. (1988) Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: modeling individual and group perceptions within homogeneous hazard domains, Risk Analysis, 8(3), pp. 435-455.
41. Kuyper, H. and Vlek, C. (1984) Contrasting risk judgments among interest groups, Acta Psychohgica, 56, pp. 205-218.
42. Langford, I. H., Marris, C., McDonald, A.-L., Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J. and O'Riordan, T. (1999) Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modelling, Risk Analysis, 19(4), pp. 675-683.
43. Lazo, J. K., Kinnell, J. C. and Fisher, A. (2000) Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk, Risk Analysis, 20(2), pp. 179-193.
44. Marris, C., Langford, I., Saunderson, T. and O'Riordan, T. (1997) Exploring the psychometric paradigm: comparison between aggregate and individual analyses, Risk Analysis, 17(3), pp. 303-312.
45. Marris, C., Langford, I. H. and O'Riordan, T. (1998) A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparison with the psychometric paradigm, Risk Analysis, 18(5), pp. 635-647.
46. McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., Cavanagh, N. S. and Slovic, P. (1997) Perception of ecological risk to water environments, Risk Analysis, 17(3), pp. 341-352.
47. McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J. and Slovic, P. (1995) Characterizing perception of ecological risk, Risk Analysis, 15(5), pp. 575-588.
48. McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J. and Slovic, P. (1996) Perceived ecological risks of global change: a psychometric comparison of causes and consequences, Global Environmental Change, 6(2), pp. 159-171.
49. Minard, R. A., Jr. (1996) CRA and the states: history, politics, and results, in: J. C. Davies (Ed.) Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities, pp. 23-61 (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future).
50. Morgan, K. M., DeKay, M. L., Fischbeck, P. S., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B. and Florig, H. K. (2001) A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): evaluation of validity and agreement among risk managers, Risk Analysis, 21(5), pp. 923-937.
51. Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L. and Fischbeck, P. (1996) A proposal for ranking risk within federal agencies, in: J. C. Davies (Ed.) Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities, pp. 111-147 (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future).
52. Nyland, L. G. (1993) Risk Perception in Brazil and Sweden, Rhizikon report number 15 (Rhizikon Risk Research: Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics).
53. Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, pp. 1427-1453.
54. Poumadere, M., Mays, C., Slovic, P., Flynn, J. and Johnson, S. (1995) What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option, in: The Nuclear Power Option. Proceedings of an International Conference on the Nuclear Power Option, pp. 393-405 (Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency).
55. Rohrmann, B. (1994) Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparison, Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, pp. 150-163.
56. Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M. and Slovic, P. (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology, Risk Analysis, 24(5), pp. 1289-1300.
57. Schütz, H. and Wiedemann, P. M. (1998) Judgments of personal and environmental risks of consumer products: do they differ? Risk Analysis, 18(1), pp. 119-129.
58. Siegrist, M., Keller, C. and Kiers, A. L. H. (2005) A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards, Risk Analysis, 25(1), pp. 209-220.
59. Sjöberg, L. (1996) A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68, pp. 219-225.
60. Sjöberg, L. (1998) Why do people demand risk reduction? in: S. Lydersen, G. K. Hansen & H. A. Sandtorv (Eds) ESREL-98: Safety and Reliability, pp. 751-758 (Lisse, The Netherlands: A. A. Balkema).
61. Sjöberg, L. (1999) The psychometric paradigm revisited. Paper presented at the Royal Statistical Society Conference, University of Warwick, July.
62. Sjöberg, L. (2000) Factors in risk perception, Risk Analysis, 20(1), pp. 1-11.
63. Sjöberg, L. (2002) Are received risk perception models alive and well? Risk Analysis, 22(4), pp. 665-669.
64. Sjöberg, L. and Wåhlberg, A. (2002) Risk perception and new age beliefs, Risk Analysis, 22(4), pp. 751-764.
65. Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of risk, Science, 236, pp. 280-285.
66. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and 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. 181-216 (New York: Plenum Press).
67. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and 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 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
68. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1986) The psychometric study of risk perception, in: V. T. Covello, J. Menkes & J. Mumpower (Eds) Risk Evaluation and Management, pp. 3-24 (New York: Plenum Press).
69. Teigen, K. H., Brun, W. and Slovic, P. (1988) Societal risks as seen by the Norwegian public, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, pp. 111-130.
70. Trumbo, C. W. (1996) Examining psychometrics and polarization in a single-risk case study, Risk Analysis, 16(3), pp. 429-438.
71. Vlek, C. and Stallen, P.-J. (1981) Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, pp. 235-271.
72. Wagenaar, W. A., Keren, G. and Pleit-Kuiper, A. (1984) The multiple objectives of gamblers, Acta Psychologica, 56, pp. 167-178.
73. Wiegman, O., Gutteling, J. M. and Cadet, B. (1995) Perception of nuclear energy and coal in France and the Netherlands, Risk Analysis, 15(4), pp. 513-521.
74. Willis, H. H. and DeKay, M. L. (2007) The roles of group membership, beliefs, and norms in ecological risk perception, Risk Analysis, (in press).
75. Willis, H. H., DeKay, M. L., Fischhoff, B. and Morgan, M. G. (2005) Aggregate, disaggregate, and hybrid analyses of ecological risk perceptions, Risk Analysis, 25(2), pp. 405-428.
76. Willis, H. H., DeKay, M. L., Morgan, M. G., Florig, H. K. and Fischbeck, P. S. (2004) Ecological risk ranking: development and evaluation of a method for improving public participation in environmental decision making, Risk Analysis, 24(2), pp. 363-378.