Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications for Risk Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis

Abstract

Risk perception differs from scientific or statistical assessment of risks. More than reflecting probability and magnitude, risk perception also includes aspects such as voluntariness of risk, possibility of personal control, or familiarity. It is also based on intuitive processes of making inferences, social values, and cultural beliefs. They follow specific patterns of semantic images and facilitate judgments about acceptability. Risk perceptions should not be seen as irrational responses to complex phenomena but rather as indicators for individual and societal concerns that require management and communication action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Knowledge refers here to shared beliefs about the state of the world, values to orientations about how to judge actions in terms of (moral) desirability and ethical norms, interests to personal or instituional net benefits, and preferences to holistic, often socially or culturally embedded, judgments on the personal attractiveness of options.

References

  • Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amy, D. J. (1983). Environmental mediation: An alternative approach to policy stalemates. Policy Sciences, 15(4), 345–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, J. S. (1998). Beyond the usual suspects: The use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decision making. Indiana Law Journal, 73, 903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armour, A. (1995). The citizen’s jury model of public participation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating new models for environmental discourse (pp. 175–188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Toward a new modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boholm, A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), 135–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracha, H. S. (2004). Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: Adaptionist perspectives on the acute stress response spectrum. CNS Spectrums, 9(9), 679–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breakwell, G. M. (1994). The echo of power: A framework for social psychological research. The Psychologist, 17(2), 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breakwell, G. M. (2014). The psychology of risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1987). The psychology of risk. In W. T. Singleton & J. Howden (Eds.), Risk and decisions (pp. 25–39). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38(1), 575–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, L. (1989). Acceptable risk? Making decisions in a toxic environment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello, V. T. (1983). The perception of technological risks: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23(1), 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jonge, J., van Kleef, E., Frewer, L., & Renn, O. (2007). Perception of risk, benefit and trust associated with consumer food choice. In L. Fewer & H. van Trijp (Eds.), Understanding consumers of food products (pp. 534–557). Cambridge: Woodhead.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, B. (2015). Risk governance and the integration of different types of knowledge. In U. F. Paleo (Ed.), Risk governance. The articulation of hazard, politics and ecology (pp. 149–165). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel, P. C. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: Citizen reports on technological projects. In C. Vlek & G. Cvetkovich (Eds.), Social decision methodology for technological projects (pp. 133–151). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, J., & Joss, S. (1995). Public participation in science. London: Science Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1985). Managing risk perceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combus, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kusenof, S., Ness, M., & Ritson, C. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11(4), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases”. European Review of Social Psychology, 2(1), 83–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2013). Risiko. Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft. München: Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Rethinking rationality. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 1–12). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., & Fields, D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: A new perspective for environmental negotiation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), 415–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IRGC (International Risk Governance Council). (2005). Risk governance—Towards an integrative approach (White Paper no 1, with an Annex by P. Graham). IRGC, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk, uncertainty, and rational action. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, H., Pfister, H.-R., & Fischer, K. (2005). Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2012). Adaptive and integrative governance on risk and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, A., & Warland, J. (2005). Determinants of food safety risk: A multi-disciplinary approach. Rural Sociology, 70(2), 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12(2), 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. R. (1981). The public perception of risk and the question of irrationality. In Royal Society of Great Britain (Ed.), Risk perception (pp. 5–16). London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnerooth-Bayer, J., & Fitzgerald, K. B. (1996). Conflicting views on fair sitting processes: Evidence from Austria and the US. Risk: Health Safety & Environment, 7(2), 119–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, E. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, L. L. (1983). Some thoughts on the psychological concept of risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(1), 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In R. F. Geyer & J. van der Zouven (Eds.), Sociokybernetic paradoxes: Observation, control and evolution of self-steering systems (pp. 172–192). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1997). Grenzwerte der ökologischen Politik: Eine Form von Risikomanagement. In P. Hiller & G. Krücken (Eds.), Risiko und Regulierung. Soziologische Beiträge zu Technikkontrolle und präventiver Umweltpolitik (pp. 195–221). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, I., & Nesse, R. (1994). Fear and fitness: An evolutionary analysis of anxiety disorders. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(5), 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, B. K. (1999). Globalization, environmental degradation and Ulrich Beck’s risk society. Environmental Values, 8(2), 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. (1987). Does public perception of risk explain the social response to potential hazard. Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 11(2), 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., Cavanagh, N. S., & Slovic, P. (1997). Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 17(3), 341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2001). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mythen, G. (2005). Employment, individualization, and insecurity: Rethinking the risk society perspective. The Sociological Review, 53(1), 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2002). Guidance document on risk communication for chemical risk management (Series on Risk Management, no 16, Environment, Health and Safety Publications). OECD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., Burraston, B., & Mertz, C. K. (2004). An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma-susceptibility: Cognitive-appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1349–1367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P. (1991). Durch Risikokommunikation zur Technikakzeptanz? Die Konstruktion von Risiko “Wirklichkeiten” durch Experten, Gegenexperten und Öffentlichkeit. In J. Krüger & S. Ruß-Mohl (Eds.), Risikokommunikation. Technikakzeptanz, Medien und Kommunikationsrisiken (pp. 11–67). Berlin: Edition Stigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N. F. (1997). The limits to safety? Culture, politics, learning and man–made disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollatsek, A., & Tversky, A. (1970). A theory of risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7(3), 540–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (1990). Risk perception and risk management: A review. Risk Abstracts, 7(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2005). Risk perception and communication lessons for the food and food packaging industry. Food Additives and Contaminants, 22(10), 1061–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance. Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2014a). Das Risikoparadox: Warum wir uns vor dem Falschen fürchten. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (2014b). Stakeholder involvement in risk governance. London: Ark Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Benighaus, C. (2013). Perception of technological risk: Insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management. Journal of Risk Research, 16(3–4), 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Rohrmann, B. (2000). Cross-vultural risk perception research: State and challenges. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical studies (pp. 211–233). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Schweizer, P. (2009). Inclusive risk governance: Concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 174–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Burns, W., Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical application. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Schweizer, P.-J., Dreyer, M., & Klinke, A. (2007). Risiko: Über den gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit Unsicherheit. München: Oekom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann, B. (2000). Cross-national studies on the perception and evaluation of hazards. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of research results (pp. 55–78). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann, B., & Renn, O. (2000). Risk perception research—An introduction. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical etudies (pp. 11–54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E. A., Matsuda, N., & Kleinhesselink, R. R. (2000). The cognitive architecture of risk: Pancultural unity or cultural shaping? In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical studies (pp. 185–210). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, E. A., Renn, O., & McCright, A. M. (2014). The risk society revisited. Social theory and governance. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000): Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1): 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, R. (2009). Environmental literacy in science and society. From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shubik, M. (1991). Risk, society, politicians, scientists and people. In M. Shubik (Ed.), Risk, organizations, and society (pp. 7–30). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perceptions of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25(1), 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1999). Risk perception in Western Europe. Ambio, 28(6), 543–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 220(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21(1), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2000). Informing an education the public about risk. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 182–191). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, E., Peters, D., & MacGregor, R. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahnemann (Eds.), Intuitive judgment, heuristic and biases (pp. 397–420). Cambridge; MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal risk assessment how safe is safe enough? (pp. 181–214). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Why study risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2(2), 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1986). The psychometric study of risk perception. In V. R. Covello, J. Menkes, & J. Mumpower (Eds.), Risk evaluation and management (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Mertz, C. K., Poumadere, M., & Mays, C. (2000). Nuclear power and the public: A comparative study of risk perception in the United States and France. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of research results (pp. 55–102). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 799–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1994). Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: A UK study. Agriculture and Human Values, 11(1), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, V. (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streffer, C., Bücker, J., Cansier, A., Cansier, D., Gethmann, C. F., Guderian, R., … Wuttke, K. (2003). Environmental standards: Combined exposures and their effects on human beings and their environment. Berlin: Springer Science.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (2009). Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. (1980). An outline of the cultural theory of risk (International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) Working Paper, WP–80–177). IIASA, Laxenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M., Ellis, W., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, E., Clarke, D. D., & Travis, B. (2004). Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1369–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US-National Research Council of the National Academies. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2010). The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1049–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler, T., Levine, D., Rakel, H., & Renn, O. (1991). A novel approach to reducing uncertainty: The group Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39(3), 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, I. (2001). Social theories of risk perception: At once indispensable and insufficient. Current Sociology, 49(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (2002). Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology, 50(3), 459–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwick, M. M., & Renn, O. (1998) Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Technik in Baden-Württemberg. Paper presented at Stuttgart Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, Germany

    Ortwin Renn

Authors
  1. Ortwin Renn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ortwin Renn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Agelab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Martina Raue

  2. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Eva Lermer

  3. Institute of Psychology, UMIT - Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tyrol, Austria

    Bernhard Streicher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Renn, O. (2018). Implications for Risk Governance. In: Raue, M., Lermer, E., Streicher, B. (eds) Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation