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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Acton, J. P. (1973). “Evaluating public programs to save lives: The case of heart attacks,” Rand Corporation Report R-950-RC, January.
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.
Green, C. H. (1974). “Measures for safety.” Unpublished manuscript. Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Fischhoff, B. (1977). “Cost-benefit analysis and the art of motorcycle maintenance,” Policy Sciences, 8, 177–202.
Kates, R. W. (1975). “Risk assessment of environmental hazard,” SCOPE Report 8, International Council of Scientific Unions, Paris, France.
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.
Linnerooth, J. (1975). “The evaluation of life saving: A survey,” Research Report 75–21, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, July
Liska, A. E. (Ed.), (1975). The Consistency Controversy. New York: Wiley.
Lowrance, W. W. (1976). Of Acceptable Risk. Los Altos, Calif.: Wm. Kaufman, Inc.
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.
Otway, H. (1975). “Risk assessment and societal choices,” Research Memorandum 75–2, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, February.
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.
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.
Otway, H. J. and Pahner, P. D. (1976). “Risk assessment,” Futures, 8, 122–134.
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.
Rowe, W. D. (1977). An Anatomy of Risk. New York: Wiley.
Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1977). “Behavioral decision theory,” Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 1–39.
Starr, C. (1969). “Social benefit versus technological risk,” Science, 165, 1232–1238.
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.
Starr, C., Rudman, R. and Whipple, C. (1976). “Philosophical basis for risk analysis,” Annual Review of Energy, 1, 629–662.
Torrance, G. (1970). “Generalized cost-effectiveness model for the evaluation of health programs,” McMaster University Faculty of Business Research Series, No. 101.
Wyler, A. R., Masuda, M. and Holmes, T. H. (1968). “Seriousness of illness rating scale,” Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 363–374.
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant OEP75-20318 to the University of California, Los Angeles under subcontract No. K559081-0 to Oregon Research Institute. We thank Robyn Dawes, Lewis Goldberg, David Okrent, Ola Svenson, and Chris Whipple for comments on an earlier draft. Correspondence and requests for reprints may be addressed to the authors at Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, U.S.A.
About this article
Cite this article
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. et al. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9, 127–152 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
- Economic Policy
- Basic Dimension
- Policy Decision
- Risk Level
- Fundamental Question