Policy Sciences

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 127–152 | Cite as

How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits

  • Baruch Fischhoff
  • Paul Slovic
  • Sarah Lichtenstein
  • Stephen Read
  • Barbara Combs


One of the fundamental questions addressed by risk-benefit analysis is “How safe is safe enough?” Chauncey Starr has proposed that economic data be used to reveal patterns of acceptable risk-benefit tradeoffs. The present study investigates an alternative technique, in which psychometric procedures were used to elicit quantitative judgments of perceived risk, acceptable risk, and perceived benefit for each of 30 activities and technologies. The participants were seventy-six members of the League of Women Voters. The results indicated little systematic relationship between perceived existing risks and benefits of the 30 risk items. Current risk levels were generally viewed as unacceptably high. When current risk levels were adjusted to what would be considered acceptable risk levels, however, risk was found to correlate with benefit. Nine descriptive attributes of risk were also studied. These nine attributes seemed to tap two basic dimensions of risk. These dimensions proved to be effective predictors of the tradeoff between acceptable risk and perceived benefit. The limitations of the present study and the relationship between this technique and Starr's technique are discussed, along with the implications of the findings for policy decisions.


Economic Policy Basic Dimension Policy Decision Risk Level Fundamental Question 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acton, J. P. (1973). “Evaluating public programs to save lives: The case of heart attacks,” Rand Corporation Report R-950-RC, January.Google Scholar
  2. Golant, S. and Burton, I. (1969). “Avoidance response to the risk environment,” Natural Hazards Research Working Paper No. 6, Dept. of Geography, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  3. Green, C. H. (1974). “Measures for safety.” Unpublished manuscript. Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  4. Fischhoff, B. (1977). “Cost-benefit analysis and the art of motorcycle maintenance,” Policy Sciences, 8, 177–202.Google Scholar
  5. Kates, R. W. (1975). “Risk assessment of environmental hazard,” SCOPE Report 8, International Council of Scientific Unions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  6. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Combs, B. and Layman, M. (1978). “Perceived frequency of low-probability lethal events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, in press.Google Scholar
  7. Linnerooth, J. (1975). “The evaluation of life saving: A survey,” Research Report 75–21, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, JulyGoogle Scholar
  8. Liska, A. E. (Ed.), (1975). The Consistency Controversy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Lowrance, W. W. (1976). Of Acceptable Risk. Los Altos, Calif.: Wm. Kaufman, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Maynard, W. S., Nealey, S. M., Hébert, J. A. and Lindell, M. K. (1976). “Public values associated with nuclear waste disposal,” Report BNWL-1997 (UC-70), Battelle Memorial Institute, Human Affairs Research Center, Seattle, Washington, June.Google Scholar
  11. Otway, H. (1975). “Risk assessment and societal choices,” Research Memorandum 75–2, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, February.Google Scholar
  12. Otway, H. J. and Cohen, J. J. (1975). “Revealed preferences: Comments on the Starr benefit-risk relationships,” Research Memorandum 75–5, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, March.Google Scholar
  13. Otway, H. J., Maderthaner, R. and Guttman, G. (1975). “Avoidance response to the risk environment: A cross cultural comparison.” Research Report 75–14. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, May.Google Scholar
  14. Otway, H. J. and Pahner, P. D. (1976). “Risk assessment,” Futures, 8, 122–134.Google Scholar
  15. Rappaport, E. (1974). “Economic analysis of life-and-death decision making.” Appendix 2 in Report No. Eng 7478, School of Engineering and Applied Science, UCLA, Nov.Google Scholar
  16. Rowe, W. D. (1977). An Anatomy of Risk. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  18. Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1977). “Behavioral decision theory,” Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 1–39.Google Scholar
  20. Starr, C. (1969). “Social benefit versus technological risk,” Science, 165, 1232–1238.Google Scholar
  21. Starr, C. (1972). “Benefit-cost studies in sociotechnical systems.” In Committee on Public Engineering Policy, Perspective on Benefit-Risk Decision Making. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  22. Starr, C., Rudman, R. and Whipple, C. (1976). “Philosophical basis for risk analysis,” Annual Review of Energy, 1, 629–662.Google Scholar
  23. Torrance, G. (1970). “Generalized cost-effectiveness model for the evaluation of health programs,” McMaster University Faculty of Business Research Series, No. 101.Google Scholar
  24. Wyler, A. R., Masuda, M. and Holmes, T. H. (1968). “Seriousness of illness rating scale,” Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 363–374.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baruch Fischhoff
    • 1
  • Paul Slovic
    • 1
  • Sarah Lichtenstein
    • 1
  • Stephen Read
    • 2
  • Barbara Combs
    • 3
  1. 1.Decision Research, A Branch of PerceptronicsEugeneUSA
  2. 2.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.University of OregonOregonUSA

Personalised recommendations