Risk perception and societal response

Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 661-675

  Sjöberg, Lennart ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84919647673     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_25     Document Type: Chapter

References (83)

1. Breakwell G (2007) The psychology of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
2. Brehmer B (1987) The psychology of risk. In: Singleton WT, Hovden J (eds) Risk and decisions. Wiley, New York, pp 25-39
3. Combs B, Slovic P (1979) Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journalism Q 56:837-843,849
4. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns-a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302-339
5. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley
6. Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (1996) Stämningar i Storuman efter folkomröstningen om ett djupförvar (Moods in Storuman after the repository referendum). Projekt Rapport No. PR D-96-004, SKB, Stockholm
7. Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (1998) Stämningar i Malå efter folkomröstningen 1997 (Moods in Malå after the 1997 referendum). Projekt Rapport No. PR D-98-03, SKB, Stockholm
8. Drottz-Sjöberg B-M, Sjöberg L (1991) Attitudes and conceptions of adolescents with regard to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. J Appl Soc Psychol 21:2007-2035
9. Drottz-Sjöberg B-M, Sjöberg L (2009) The perception of risks of technology. In: Grimvall G, Jacobsson D, Thedéen T, Holmgren Å (eds) Risks in technical systems. Springer, New York, pp 255-271
10. 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 Sci 9:127-152
11. Gardner GT, Gould LC (1989) Public perceptions of the risk and benefits of technology. Risk Anal 9:225-242
12. Gaskell G, Allum N, WagnerW, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J et al (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24:185-194
13. Harris P, MiddletonW(1994) The illusion of control and optimism about health: on being less at risk but no more in control than others. Br J Soc Psychol 33:369-386
14. Huang L, Sun K, Ban J, Bi J (2010) Public perception of Blue-Algae bloom risk in Hongze Lake of China. Environ Manag 45:1065-1075
15. Lee JEC, Lemyre L, Krewski D (2010) A multi-method, multi-hazard approach to explore the uniqueness of terrorism risk perceptions and worry. J Appl Soc Psychol 40:241-272
16. Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Fischhoff B (2003) Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: a national field experiment. Psychol Sci 14:144-150
17. McCombs M, Gilbert S (1986) News influence on our pictures of the world. In: Bryant J, Zillman D (eds) Perspectives on media effects. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 1-15
18. Morrall JF III (1986) A review of the record. Regulation 10:25-34
19. Myers IB, McCaulley MH, Quenk NL, Hammer AL (2003) MBTI manual, 3rd edn. CPP, Palo Alto
20. Pedhazur EJ (1982) Multiple regression in behavioral research. Explanation and prediction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
21. Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal 17:43-54
22. Quarantelli EL (1954) The nature and conditions of panic. Am J Sociol 60:265-275
23. Ramsberg J, Sjöberg L (1997) The cost-effectiveness of life saving interventions in Sweden. Risk Anal 17:467-478
24. Ramsberg J, Sjöberg L (1998) The importance of cost and risk characteristics for attitudes towards lifesaving interventions. Risk Health Saf Environ 9:271-290
25. Robinson WS (1950) Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am Sociol Rev 15:351-357
26. Rowe G, Wright G (2001) Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: myth or reality? Risk Anal 21:341-356
27. Rundmo T, Sjöberg L (1996) Employee risk perception related to offshore oil platform movements. Saf Sci 24:211-227
28. Rundmo T, Sjöberg L (1998) Risk perception by offshore oil personnel related to platform movements. Risk Anal 18:111-118
29. Schmiege SJ, Bryan A, Klein WMP (2009) Distinctions between worry and perceived risk in the context of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 39:95-119
30. Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, San Diego, pp 1-63
31. Schwartz SH, Melech G, Lehmann A, Burgess S, Harris M, Owens V (2001) Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J Cross Cult Psychol 32:519-542
32. Sherry-Brennan F, Devine-Wright H, Devine-Wright P (2010) Public understanding of hydrogen energy: a theoretical approach. Energy Policy 38:5311-5319
33. Silva C, Jenkins-Smith HC, Barke RP (2007) Reconciling scientists’ beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: explaining preferred radiation protection standards. Risk Anal 27:758-773
34. Sjöberg L (1979) Strength of belief and risk. Policy Sci 11:39-57
35. Sjöberg L (1980) The risks of risk analysis. Acta Psychol 45:301-321
36. Sjöberg L (1992) Psychological reactions to a nuclear accident. In: Baarli J (ed) Conference on the radiological and radiation protection problems in Nordic regions, Tromsö, 21-22 Nov 1991. Nordic Society for Radiation Protection, Oslo, p 12
37. Sjöberg L (1997) Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decis Policy 2:113-130
38. Sjöberg L (1998) Worry and risk perception. Risk Anal 18:85-93
39. Sjöberg L (1999a) Consequences of perceived risk: demand for mitigation. J Risk Res 2:129-149
40. Sjöberg L (1999b) Life-values and the tyranny of unique decisions. In: Hermerén G, Sahlin N-E (eds) The value of life. Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, pp 73-84
41. Sjöberg L (2000a) Consequences matter, '‘risk’’ is marginal. J Risk Res 3:287-295
42. Sjöberg L (2000b) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1-11
43. Sjöberg L (2000c) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3:353-367
44. Sjöberg L (2001a) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189-198
45. Sjöberg L (2001b) Political decisions and public risk perception. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 72:115-124
46. Sjöberg L (2001c) Whose risk perception should influence decisions? Reliab Eng Syst Saf 72:149-152
47. Sjöberg L (2002a) The allegedly simple structure of experts’ risk perception: an urban legend in risk research. Sci Technol Hum Value 27:443-459
48. Sjöberg L (2002b) Are received risk perception models alive and well? Risk Anal 22:665-670
49. Sjöberg L (2002c) Attitudes toward technology and risk: going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sci 35:379-400
50. Sjöberg L (2003a) Attitudes and risk perceptions of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Anal 23:739-749
51. Sjöberg L (2003b) The different dynamics of personal and general risk. Risk Manag Int J 5:19-34
52. Sjöberg L (2003c) Distal factors in risk perception. J Risk Res 6:187-211
53. Sjöberg L (2003d) Risk perception is not what it seems: the psychometric paradigm revisited. In: Andersson K (ed) VALDOR conference 2003.VALDOR, Stockholm, pp 14-29
54. Sjöberg L (2004a) Explaining individual risk perception: the case of nuclear waste. Risk Manag Int J 6:51-64
55. Sjöberg L (2004b) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal 24:739-751
56. Sjöberg L (2005) The perceived risk of terrorism. Risk Manag Int J 7:43-61
57. Sjöberg L (2006a) Rational risk perception: Utopia or dystopia? J Risk Res 9:683-696
58. Sjöberg L (2006b) Will the real meaning of affect please stand up? J Risk Res 9:101-108
59. Sjöberg L (2007a) Emotions and risk perception. Risk Manag Int J 9:222-237
60. Sjöberg L (2007b) Försummade risker. (Neglected risks). In: Derefeldt G, Sjöstedt G (eds) SDSS Å rsbok 2007. Strukturerad osäkerhet, ostrukturerad säkerhet i en globaliserad värld.Utrikespolitiska institutet, Stockholm, pp 39-51
61. Sjöberg L (2008a) Antagonism, trust and perceived risk. Risk Manag Int J 10:32-55
62. Sjöberg L (2008b) Attityd till slutförvar av använt kärnbränsle: Struktur och orsaker (Attitudes toward the final repository for spent nuclear power: Structure and causes). Research Report No. R-08-119, SKB, Stockholm. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB
63. Sjöberg L (2008c) Genetically modified food in the eyes of the public and experts. Risk Manag Int J 10:168-193
64. Sjöberg L (2009) Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository. Saf Sci 47:542-546
65. Sjöberg L, afWåhlberg A (2002) Risk perception and new age beliefs. Risk Anal 22:751-764
66. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (2008a) Attitudes towards nuclear waste and siting policy: experts and the public. In: Lattefer AP (ed) Nuclear waste research: siting, technology and treatment. Nova Publishers, New York, pp 47-74
67. Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (2008b) Risk perception by politicians and the public. Energy Environ 19:455-483
68. Sjöberg L, Engelberg E (2010) Risk perception and movies: a study of availability as a factor in risk perception. Risk Anal 30:95-106
69. Sjöberg L, Torell G (1993) The development of risk acceptance and moral valuation. Scand J Psychol 34: 223-236
70. Sjöberg L, Wester-Herber M (2008) Too much trust in (social) trust? The importance of epistemic concerns and perceived antagonism. Int J Glob Environ Isssue 30:30-44
71. Sjöberg L, Winroth E (1986) Risk, moral value of actions, and mood. Scand J Psychol 27:191-208
72. Sjöberg L, Kolarova D, Rucai A-A, Bernström M-L (2000a) Risk perception in Bulgaria and Romania. In: Renn O, Rohrmann B (eds) Cross-cultural risk perception. A survey of empirical studies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 145-184
73. Sjöberg L, Truedsson J, Frewer LJ, Prades A (2000b) Through a glass darkly: experts’ and the public’s mutual risk perception. In: Cottam MP, Harvey DW, Pape RP, Tait J (eds) Foresight and precaution, vol 1. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1157-1162
74. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(14-20):36-39
75. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Layman M (1991) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254:1603-1607
76. Surowiecki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. Doubleday, New York
77. Tengs OT, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC et al (1995) Five-hundred life saving interventions and their cost effectiveness. Risk Anal 15:369-390
78. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 4:207-232
79. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124-1131
80. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12:373-381
81. West J, Bailey I, Winter M (2010) Renewable energy policy and public perceptions of renewable energy: a cultural theory approach. Energy Policy 38: 5739-5748
82. Wester-Herber M, Fight, flight or freeze: assumed reactions of the public during a crisis. J Contingen Crisis Manage (in press)
83. Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119: 41-60