Participant-focused analysis: Explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 735-753

  Bronfman, Nicolás C ^a   Cifuentes, Luis Abdón ^b   Gutiérrez, Virna Vaneza ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD ANDRÉS BELLO   (Chile)

^b PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

^c UNIVERSIDAD DIEGO PORTALES   (Chile)

Author keywords

Principal component analysis; Psychometric paradigm; Risk perceptions; Socio demographic conditions

Indexed keywords

EXPLANATORY POWER; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PSYCHOMETRIC PARADIGM; RISK PERCEPTIONS; SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS;

RISK ANALYSIS;

EID: 50949099430     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870801967143     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Barnett, J., and G.M. Breakwell. 2001. Risk perception and experience: Hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Analysis 21, no. 1: 171-7.
2. Bastide, S., J.-P. Moatti, J.-P. Pages, and F. Fagnani. 1989. Risk perception and the social acceptability of technologies: The French case. Risk Analysis 9, no. 2: 215-23.
3. Boholm, A. 1998. Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research 1, no. 2: 135-63.
4. Bronfman, N.C., and L.A. Cifuentes. 2003. Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile. Risk Analysis 23, no. 6: 1271-85.
5. Bronfman, N.C., L.A. Cifuentes, M.L. DeKay, and H.H. Willis. 2007. Accounting for variation in the explanatory power of the psychometric paradigm: The effects of aggregation and focus. Journal of Risk Research 10, no. 4: 527-54.
6. Davidson, D.J., and W.R. Freudenburg. 1996. Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behaviour 28: 302-39.
7. Dosman, D.M., W.L. Adamowicz, and S.E. Hrudey. 2001. Socioeconomic determinants of health- and food safety-related risk perceptions. Risk Analysis 21, no. 2: 307-17.
8. Eiser, J.R., B. Hannover, L. Mann, M. Morin, J. Van der Pligt, and P. Webley. 1990. Nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl: A cross-national study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 10: 101-10.
9. Englander, T., K. Farago, and P. Slovic. 1986. Comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social Behavior 1: 55-66.
10. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. The American Statistician 36, no. 3: 240-55.
11. 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: 127-52.
12. Flynn, J., P. Slovic, and C.K. Mertz. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 14, no. 6: 1101-8.
13. Gardner, G.T., and L.C. Gould. 1989. Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis 9, no. 2: 225-42.
14. Gardner, G.T., A.R. Tiemann, L.R. Gould, D.R. DeLuca, L.W. Doob, and J.A.J. Stolwijk. 1982. Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology 116: 179-97.
15. Goszczynska, M., T. Tyszka, and P. Slovic. 1991. Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4: 179-93.
16. Gustafson, P.E. 1998. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis 18, no. 6: 805-11.
17. Harding, C.M., and J.R. Eiser. 1984. Characterizing the perceived risks and benefits of some health issues. Risk Analysis 4: 131-41.
18. Hinman, G.W., E.A. Rosa, R.R. Kleinhesselink, and T.C. Lowinger. 1993. Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis 13: 449-55.
19. Hitchcock, J.L. 2000. Gender differences in risk perception: Broadening the contexts. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment Fall 1: 179-204.
20. Jenni, K.E. 1997. Attributes for risk evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
21. Jianguang, Z. 1994. Environmental hazards in the Chinese public's eyes. Risk Analysis 14, no. 2: 163-7.
22. Karpowicz-Lazerg, C., and E. Mullet. 1993. Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis 13: 253-8.
23. Keown, C.F. 1989. Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans. Risk Analysis 9, no. 3: 401-5.
24. Kleinhesselink, R., and E. Rosa. 1991. Cognitive representations of risk perceptions: A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22, no. 1: 11-28.
25. Kraus, N.N., and P. Slovic. 1988. Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: Modeling individual and group perceptions within homogeneous hazard domains. Risk Analysis 8, no. 3: 435-55.
26. Krewski, D., P. Slovic, S. Bartlett, J. Flynn, and C.K. Mertz. 1995a. Health risk perception in Canada I: Rating hazards, sources of information and responsibility for health protection. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1, no. 2: 117-32.
27. _. 1995b. Health risk perception in Canada II: Worldviews, attitudes and opinions. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 1, no. 3: 231-48.
28. Langford, I.H., C. Marris, A.-L. McDonald, H. Goldstein, J. Rasbash, and T. O'Riordan. 1999. Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling. Risk Analysis 19, no. 4: 675-83.
29. Marris, C., I. Langford, T. Saunderson, and T. O'Riordan. 1997. Exploring the psychometric paradigm: Comparison between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis 17, no. 3: 303-12.
30. MIDEPLAN. 2003. Household Income Distribution of the Chilean Population. Santiago, Chile: MIDEPLAN.
31. Nyland, L.G. 1993. Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. Rhizikon: Risk Research Reports no. 15. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
32. PAHO. 2004. Our shared goals: Working for equity in the Americas by 2015. Perspectives in Health. The Magazine of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Regional Office of the World Health Organization (WHO) 9: 1-36.
33. Poumadere, M., C. Mays, P. Slovic, J. Flynn, and S. Johnson. 1995. What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option. Proceedings of the International Atomic Energy Agency Meeting of the Nuclear Power Option, September 5-7, in Vienna, 393-405.
34. Rohrmann, B. 1994. Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparison. Australian Journal of Psychology 46: 150-63.
35. Savadori, L., S. Savio, E. Nicotra, R. Rumiati, M. Finucane, and P. Slovic. 2004. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis 24, no. 5: 1289-300.
36. Siegrist, M., G. Cvetkovich, and C. Roth. 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/ benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20, no. 3: 353-62.
37. Siegrist, M., C. Keller, and A.L.H. Kiers. 2005. A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis 25, no. 1: 209-20.
38. Sjöberg, L. 1996. A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 68: 219-25.
39. _. 1999. The psychometric paradigm revisited. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, Royal Statistical Society, July, at the University of Warwick.
40. _. 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20, no. 1: 1-11. Sjöberg, L., and B.-M. Drottz-Sjöberg. 1994. Risk perception. In Radiation and society: Comprehending radiation risk, vol. 1: 29-59. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
41. Slovic, P. 1986. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis 6, no. 4: 403-15.
42. _. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280-5.
43. Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough?, ed. R.C. Schwing and W.A. Albers, 181-216. New York: Plenum Press.
44. _. 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. In Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology, ed. R.W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J.X. Kasperson, 91-125. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
45. Starr, G., A. Langley, and A. Taylor. 2000. Environmental health risk perception in Australia. A research report to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. Center for Population Studies in Epidemiology, South Australian Department of Human Services.
46. Teigen, K.H., W. Brun, and P. Slovic. 1988. Societal risks as seen by the Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making 1: 111-30.
47. Trumbo, C.W. 1996. Examining psychometrics and polarization in a single-risk case study. Risk Analysis 16, no. 3: 429-38.
48. Vlek, C., and P.-J. Stallen. 1981. Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28: 235-71.
49. Wiegman, O., J.M. Gutteling, and B. Cadet. 1995. Perception of nuclear energy and coal in France and the Netherlands. Risk Analysis 15, no. 4: 513-21.
50. Willis, H.H., M.L. DeKay, B. Fischhoff, and M.G. Morgan. 2005. Aggregate disaggregate, and hybrid analyses of ecological risk perceptions. Risk Analysis 25, no. 2: 405-28.