The Psychology of Risk;Psicologia do risco

Saude e Sociedade

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 731-747

  Slovic, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation of risk; Human judgment and decision making; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 79251534107     PISSN: 01041290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S0104-12902010000400002     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. ALHAKAMI, A. S., SLOVIC, P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 14, n. 6 p. 1085-1096, dec. 1994.
2. ALPER, J. The pipeline is leaking women all the way along. Science, Washington, DC, v. 260, n. 5106, 409-411, april 1993.
3. BARKE, R., JENKINS-SMITH, H., SLOVIC, P. Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, Oklahoma, v. 78, n. 1, p. 167-176, 1997.
4. BAUMER, T. L. Research on fear of crime in the United States. Victimology, v. 3, p. 254-264, 1978.
5. BREYER, S. Breaking the vicious circle: toward effective risk regulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
6. BURNS, W. et al. Social amplification of risk: an empirical study. Carson City, N.V.: Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Nuclear Waste Project Office, 1990.
7. COHEN, B. L. Criteria for technology acceptability. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-3, mar. 1985.
8. COVELLO, V. T. et al. The analysis of actual versus perceived risks. New York: Plenum, 1983.
9. CROUCH, E. A. C.; WILSON, R. Risk/Benefit analysis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1982.
10. DUPONT, R. L. Nuclear phobia: phobic thinking about nuclear power. Washington, DC: The Media Institute, 1980.
11. ENGLISH, M. R. Siting low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities: the public policy dilemma. New York: Quorum, 1992.
12. FENTON, D. How a PR firm executed the Alar scare. Wall Street Journal, New York, p. A 22, 3 oct. 1989.
13. FESSENDEN-RADEN, J.; FITCHEN, J. M.; HEATH, J. S. Providing risk information in communities factors influencing what is heard and accepted. Science Technology and Human Values, California, v. 12, p. 94-101, 1987.
14. FINUCANE, M. L. et al. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Malden, MA, v. 13, n. 1, p. 1-17, jan.-mar. 2000.
15. FISCHHOFF, B. et al. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, New York, v. 9, n. 2, p. 127-152, april, 1978.
16. FISCHHOFF, B.; WATSON, S.; HOPE, C. Defining risk. Policy Sciences, New York, v. 17, n. 2, 123-139, oct. 1984.
17. FLYNN, J.; SLOVIC, P.; MERTZ, C. K. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 14, n. 6, p. 1101-1108, 1994.
18. FUNTOWICZ, S. O.; RAVETZ, J. R. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: KRIMSKY, S.; GOLDING, D. (ed.). Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992. p. 251-273.
19. GILLIGAN, C. In a different voice: psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1982.
20. GREGORY, R.; FLYNN, J.; SLOVIC, P. Technological stigma. American Scientist, Research Triangle Park, NC, v. 83, p. 220-223, 1995.
21. KASPERSON, R. E. et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 8, p. 177-187, 1988.
22. KRAUS, N.; MALMFORS, T.; SLOVIC, P. Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 12, p. 215-232, 1992.
23. KRIMSKY, S.; GOLDING, D. Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger-Greenwood, 1992.
24. KUNREUTHER, H.; FITZGERALD, K.; AARTS, T. D. Siting noxious facilities: a test of the facility siting credo. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 13, p. 301-318, 1993.
25. LICHTENBERG, J. MACLEAN, D. Is good news no news? The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, Geneva, Switzerland, v. 17, n. 3, p. 362-365, july 1992.
26. MACGREGOR, D.; SLOVIC, P.; MORGAN, M. G. Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 14, n. 5, p. 815-828, 1994.
27. MAZUR, A. The dynamics of technical controversy. Washington, DC: Communications Press, 1981.
28. MERCHANT, C. The death of nature: women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.
29. MITCHELL, M. L. The impact of external parties on brand-name capital: the 1982 Tylenol poisonings and subsequent cases. Economic Inquiry, Malden, MA, v. 27, n. 4, p. 601-618, oct. 1989.
30. MOORE, J. A. Speaking of data: the Alar controversy. EPA Journal, v. 15, p. 5-9, may 1989.
31. MORGAN, M. G. et al. Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: a pilot study of risk perception. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 5, p. 139-149, 1985.
32. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). Committee on Risk Characterization. Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
33. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). Committee on Risk Perception and Communication. Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
34. OTWAY, H. Public wisdom, expert fallibility: Toward a contextual theory of risk. In: KRIMSKY, S.; GOLDING, D. (ed.). Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992. p. 215-228.
35. PETERS, E.; SLOVIC, P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Malden, MA, v. 26, n. 16, p. 1427-1453, aug. 1996.
36. PIDGEON, N. et al. Risk perception. In: The Royal Society Study Group (ed.), Risk: analysis, perception and management. London: The Royal Society, 1992. p. 89-134.
37. RENN, O.; WEBLER, T., JOHNSON, B. B. Public participation in hazard management: the use of citizen panels in the U.S. Risk: healt safety & environment, Concord, NH, v. 2, n. 3, p. 197-226, 1991.
38. RENN, O.; WEBLER, T.; WIEDEMANN, P. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1995.
39. RIGER, S.; GORDON, M. T.; LEBAILLY, R. Women's fear of crime: from blaming to restricting the victim. Victimology, v. 3, p. 274-284, 1978.
40. SLOVIC, P. Perception of risk. Science, Washington, DC, v. 236, n. 4799, p. 280-285, april 1987.
41. SLOVIC, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In: BAZERMAN, M. H. et al. (ed.), Environment, ethics, and behavior. San Francisco: New Lexington, 1997. p. 277-313.
42. SLOVIC, P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 13, n. 6, p. 675-682, dec. 1993.
43. SLOVIC, P.; FISCHHOFF, B.; LICHTENSTEIN, S. Rating the risks. Environment, hiladelphia, PA, v. 21, n. 3, p. 14-20, 36-39, 1979.
44. SLOVIC, P.; FISCHHOFF, B.; LICHTENSTEIN, S. Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety. Acta Psychologica, Amsterdam, Netherlands, v. 56, n. 1-3, p. 183-203, aug. 1984.
45. SLOVIC, P.; FISCHHOFF, B.; LICHTENSTEIN, S. Characterizing perceived risk. In: KATES, R. W.; HOHENEMSER, C.; KASPERSON, J. X. (ed.). Perilous progress: managing the hazards of technology. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1985. p. 91-123.
46. SLOVIC, P.; FLYNN, J.; LAYMAN, M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, Washington, DC, v. 254, p. 1603-1607, 1991a.
47. SLOVIC, P. et al. Nuclear power and the public: a comparative study of risk perception in France and the United States. In: RENN, O.; ROHRMANN, B. (ed.). Cross-cultural risk perception: a survey of empirical studies. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Press, 2000. p. 55-102.
48. SLOVIC, P. et al. Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 11, n. 4, p. 683-696, dec. 1991b.
49. SLOVIC, P. et al. Evaluating chemical risks: results of a survey of the British Toxicology Society. Human & Experimental Toxicology, Thousand Oaks, CA, v. 16, n. 6, p. 289-304, june 1997.
50. STEGER, M. A. E.; WITT, S. L. Gender differences in environmental orientations: a comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the U.S. The Western Political Quarterly, Salt Lake City, UT, v. 42, n. 4, p. 627-649, dec. 1989.
51. TENGS, T. O. et al. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost effectiveness. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 15, n. 3, p. 369-390, june 1995.
52. UNITED STATES. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy Analysis. Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental problems. Washington, DC: EPA, 1987.
53. UNITED STATES. Senate.The comprehensive regulatory reform act of 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.
54. WEBSTER, N. Webster's new twentieth century dictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983.
55. WEINER, R. F. Comment on Sheila Jasanoff's guest editorial. Risk Analysis, New Jersey, v. 13, v. 5, p. 495-496, oct. 1993.
56. WYNNE, B. Risk and social learning: reification to engagement. In: KRIMSKY, S.; GOLDING, D. (ed.). Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, p. 275-300, 1992.