This is a summary of the study by Baruch Fischhoff, Paul Slovic, Sarah Lichtenstein, Stephen Read and Barbara Combs, as well as a reflection on why the study has attracted sustained interest since its publication in Policy Sciences in 1978. The article’s contribution to the study of policy approaches to (new) technologies is threefold. First, it drew attention to the importance of public attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Second, the study has been crucial for the emergence of empirical investigations on decision-making. Third, the types of risks identified by the authors continue to be discussed in contemporary studies. The article demonstrates how issues relating to risk and risky decisions are able to stimulate a truly multi- and even interdisciplinary scientific discourse in which policy sciences play an important role. In terms of policy implications, Fischhoff and his collaborators have compellingly argued that citizens are more likely to accept a technological risk when they realize the benefit of the corresponding technology.
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.
Bajgier, S. M., & Moskowitz, H. (1982). An interactive model of attitude and risk/benefit formation regarding social issues. Policy Sciences, 14(3), 257–278.
Dunlop, C. A., Maggetti, M., Radaelli, C. M., & Russel, D. (2012). The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta-analysis of EU and UK cases. Regulation and Governance, 6(1), 23–45.
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 Sciences, 9(2), 127–152.
Fischhoff, B., Watson, S. R., & Hope, C. (1984). Defining risk. Policy Sciences, 17(2), 123–139.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.
Hadden, S. G., & Hazelton, J. (1980). Public policies toward risk. Policy Studies Journal, 9(1), 109–117.
Healy, T. (2014). Canadian and European Unions and the Canada—EU CETA negotiations. Globalizations, 11(1), 59–70.
Heikkila, T., & Weible, C. M. (2017). Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: A study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 179–193.
Herring, R., & Paarlberg, R. (2016). The political economy of biotechnology. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 8, 397–416.
Hill, S. (1986). Lumpy preference structures. Policy Sciences, 19(1), 5–32.
Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.
Howlett, M., & Laycock, D. (Eds.). (2013). Regulating next generation agri-food bio-technologies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ingold, K., Fischer, M., & Cairney, P. (2017). Drivers for policy agreement in nascent subsystems: An application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework to fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 442–463.
Maor, M., Tosun, J., & Jordan, A. (2017). Proportionate and disproportionate policy responses to climate change: Core concepts and empirical applications. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 1–13. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2017.1281730.
Montpetit, É., & Lachapelle, E. (2016). Information, values and expert decision-making: The case of soil decontamination. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 155–171.
Mühlböck, M., & Tosun, J. (2017). Responsiveness to different national interests: Voting behaviour on genetically modified organisms in the council of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 1–18. doi:10.1111/jcms.12609.
Nilsson, M. (2005). The role of assessments and institutions for policy learning: A study on Swedish climate and nuclear policy formation. Policy Sciences, 38(4), 225–249.
Oliver, A. (Ed.). (2013). Behavioural public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Otway, H. J., & Von Winterfeldt, D. (1982). Beyond acceptable risk: On the social acceptability of technologies. Policy Sciences, 14(3), 247–256.
Peters, B. G., Jordan, A., & Tosun, J. (2017). Over-reaction and under-reaction in climate policy: An institutional analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 1–13. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2017.1348225.
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59–69.
Sjöberg, L. (2002). Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 35(4), 379–400.
Skogstad, G. (2011). Contested accountability claims and GMO regulation in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(4), 895–915.
Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. Risk, society, and policy series. London: Earthscan.
Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165(3899), 1232–1238.
Stein, R., Buzcu-Guven, B., Dueñas-Osorio, L., Subramanian, D., & Kahle, D. (2013). How risk perceptions influence evacuations from hurricanes and compliance with government directives. Policy Studies Journal, 41(2), 319–342.
Tosun, J. (2013). How the EU handles uncertain risks: Understanding the role of the precautionary principle. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(10), 1517–1528.
Tosun, J., & Schaub, S. (2017). Mobilization in the European Public Sphere: The struggle over genetically modified organisms. Review of Policy Research, 34(3), 310–330.
Weimer, M., & Marin, L. (2016). The role of law in managing the tension between risk and innovation: Introduction to the special issue on regulating new and emerging technologies. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(3), 469–474.
Young, A. R. (2016). Not your parents’ trade politics: The transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations. Review of International Political Economy, 23(3), 345–378.
Felix Scholl deserves credit for excellent research assistance and Jennifer Shore for many helpful comments on a previous version of this note.
About this article
Cite this article
Tosun, J. On the sustained importance of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits in policy studies. Policy Sci 50, 563–572 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9298-9