Advertisement

Risk Perception

  • Paul Slovic
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis book series (CIRA, volume 3)

Abstract

In industrialized societies, the question “How safe is safe enough?” has emerged as one of the major policy issues of the 1980s. The frequent discovery of new hazards and the widespread publicity they receive is causing more and more individuals to see themselves as the victims, rather than as the beneficiaries, of technology. These fears and the opposition to technology that they produce have puzzled and frustrated industrialists and regulators and have led numerous observers to argue that the public’s apparent pursuit of a “zero-risk society” threatens the nation’s political and economic stability. Political Sci entist Aaron Wildavsky commented on this state of affairs (Wildavsky, 1979):

How extraordinary! The richest, longest-lived, best-protected, most resourceful civilization, with the highest degree of insight into its own technology, is on its way to becoming the most frightened.

Is it our environment or ourselves that have changed? Would people like us have had this sort of concern in the past? … today, there are risks from numerous small dams far exceeding those from nuclear reactors. Why is the one feared and not the other? Is it just that we are used to the old or are some of us looking differently at essentially the same sorts of experience?

Keywords

Risk Perception Unfortunate Event Technological Risk Benefit Perception Ethylene Dibromide 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, R. A., and Green, C. H., 1980, Precepts of safety assessments,J. Operat. Res. Soc. 11:563–571Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, B., and Lee, I., 1979, A catalog of risks,Health Phys. 36:707–722Google Scholar
  3. Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A., 1982, Risk and Culture ,University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, W., and von Winterfeldt, D., 1987, Public values in risk debates, Risk Anal. 7:141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., and Combs, B. 1978, How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Pol. Sci. 8:127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., and Keeney, R. L., 1981, Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S., and Hope, C., 1984, Defining risk, Pol. Sci. 17:123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardner, G. T., Tiemann, A. R., Gould, L. C., DeLuca, D. R., Doob, L. W., and Stolwijk, J. A. J., 1982, Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power, J. Soc. Psychol. 116:179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Green, C. H., 1980, Risk: Attitudes and beliefs, in: Behavior in Fires (D. V. Canter, ed.), Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  10. Green, C. H., and Brown, R. A., 1980,“Through a Glass Darkly: Perceiving Perceived Risks to Health and Safety(Research paper)”School of Architecture, Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, E. J., and Tversky, A., 1984, Representations of perceptions of risks, J. Exp. Psychol. [Gen.] 113:55–70.Google Scholar
  12. Lindell, M. K., and Earle, T. C., 1983, How close is close enough? Public perceptions of the risks of industrial facilities, Risk Anal. 3:245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacGill, S. M., 1983, Exploring the similarities of different risks, Environ. Plan. [B] 10:303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reissland, J., and Harries, V., 1979, A scale for measuring risks, New Sci. 83:809–811.Google Scholar
  15. Renn, O., 1981, Man, technology and risk: A study on intuitive risk assessment and attitudes towards nuclear power ,Report Jul-Spez 115, Jülich, June, Nuclear Research Center, Federal Republic of Germany.Google Scholar
  16. San Francisco (California) Examiner ,1984 (Feb. 10, 1984).Google Scholar
  17. Short, J. F., Jr., 1984, The social fabric at risk: Toward the social transformation of risk analysis, Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:711–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slovic, P., 1986, Informing and educating the public about risk, Risk Anal. 6:403–415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Slovic, P., 1987, Perceptions of risk, Science 236:280–285.Google Scholar
  20. Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., 1974, Rating the risks, Environment 21(3):14–20, 36–39.Google Scholar
  21. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., 1980, Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk, in: Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? (R. Schwing and W. A. Albers, Jr., eds.), pp. 181–216, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., 1981, Perceived risk: Psychological factors and social implications, in: The Assessment and Perception of Risk (F. Warner and D. H. Slater, eds.), The Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
  23. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., 1984a, Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety, Acta Psychol. 56:183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., and Fischhoff, B., 1984b, Modeling the societal impact of fatal accidents, Manag. Sci. 30:464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S., 1985, Characterizing perceived risk, in: Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology (R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J. X. Kasperson, eds.), pp. 91– 125, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  26. Sowby, F. D., 1965, Radiation and other risks, Health Phys. 11:879–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Starr, C, 1969, Social benefit versus technological risk, Science 165:1232–1238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. The New Yorker, 1985, Talk of the town, The New Yorker 60(53):29–30 (Feb. 18, 1985).Google Scholar
  29. The Sunday Star-Bulletin and Advertiser ,1984, Honolulu, Hawaii (Feb. 5, 1984).Google Scholar
  30. Vlek, C. A. J., and Stallen, P. J., 1981, Judging risk and benefit in the small and in the large, Org. Behav. Hum. Perform. 28:235–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. von Winterfeldt, D., John, R. S., and Borcherding, K., 1981, Cognitive components of risk ratings, Risk Anal. 1:277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wildavsky, A., 1979, No risk is the highest risk of all, Am. Sci. 67:32–37.Google Scholar
  33. Wilson, R., 1979, Analyzing the daily risks of life,Technol. Rev. 81(4):40–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Slovic
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision ResearchEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations