Understanding Risk Perception

  • Peter M. Wiedemann
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 11)


Different groups of people see risks differently. This chapter discusses the public or lay view of risk.


Risk Perception Risk Communication Qualitative Factor Risk Appraisal Risk Source 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, P.T. (1991). The usefulness and perceived validity of public values in nuclear waste management decisions. Guildford, Surrey, Robens Institute of Health and Safety, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
  2. Bastide, S. et al. (1989). Risk perception and social acceptability of technologies: the French case. Risk analysis, 9: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgmann, M. (1988). Technikakzeptanz: Geschlechtsspezifische Reaktionen? Moderne Technologien and die Reaktionen der Geschlechter aus soziologischer Perspektive [Acceptance of technology: gender-specific reactions? Modern technology and gender reactions from a sociological perspective]. Dissertation, Aachen, RWTH Aachen.Google Scholar
  4. Coates, J. et al. (1986). Issues management. Mt. Airy, Lomond.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, G.W. et al. (1991). What risks are people concerned about? Risk analysis, 11 (2): 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fuchs, D. (1991). Attitudes towards nuclear power in the context of a new type of political division. Jülich, Research Centre Jülich (Studies on Risk Communication, Volume 19). Gardner, G.T. & Gould, L.C. (1989). Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk analysis, 9: 225–242.Google Scholar
  7. Harding, C.M. & Eiser, J.R. (1984). Characterizing the perceived risk of some health issues. Risk analysis, 4: 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, E.J. & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45 (1): 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, E.J. & Tversky, A. (1984). Representations of perceptions of risks. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 113: 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kraus, N.N. & Slovic, P. (1988). Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: modelling individual and group perceptions within homogenous hazard domains. Risk analysis, 8 (3): 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kraus, N.N. et al. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgements of chemical risks. Risk analysis, 12: 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lappe, H. (1991). Perceptions of drug risks: individual and public response to risk. Dissertation. Berlin, Technical University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  13. Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, McGraw-Hill. Leiss, W. (1990). A typology of risk management issues. Risk abstracts, 7 (3): 1–8.Google Scholar
  14. Lichtenstein, S. et al. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of experimental psychology: human learning and memory, 4: 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacGregor, D. & Slovic, P. (1989). Perception of risk in automotive systems. Human factors, 31 (4): 377–389.Google Scholar
  16. Perusse, M. (1980). Dimensions of perception and recognition of danger. Dissertation, Birmingham, UK, University of Aston.Google Scholar
  17. Renn, O. (1984). Risikowahrnehmung der Kernenergie [Risk perception of nuclear power]. Frankfurt am Main, Campus.Google Scholar
  18. Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: a classification. In: Krimsky, S. & Golding, D., ed. Social theories of risk. Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Renn, O. & Swaton, E. (1984). Psychological and sociological approaches to study risk perception. Environment international, 10: 557–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rohrmann, B. (in press). Risk perception of different societal groups - a cross-national comparison. Australian journal of psychology.Google Scholar
  21. Sjöberg, L. & Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1991). Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk analysis, 11: 607–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sjöberg, L. & Weinroth, E. (1986). Risk, moral value of actions and mood. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 27: 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236: 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Slovic, P. et al. (1980). Perceived risk. In: Schwing, R.C. & Albers, W.A., ed. Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? New York, Plenum.Google Scholar
  25. Slovic, P. et al. (1985). Characterizing perceived risks. In: Kates, R.W. et al., ed. Perilous progress. Managing the hazards of technologies. Boulder, CO, Westview.Google Scholar
  26. Slovic, P. et al. (1989). Risk perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Sweden. In: Horrisberger, B. & Dinkel, R., ed. The perception and management of drug safety risks. Berlin, Springer, pp. 91–111.Google Scholar
  27. Spreadley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165: 1232–1238.Google Scholar
  28. Vlek, C. & Stallen, P.J. (1981). Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational behaviour and human performance, 28: 235–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Weinstein, N.D. et al. (1989). Communicating effectively about risk magnitudes. Washington, D.C, Risk Communication Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Public Planning and Evaluation (230/08–89–064)Google Scholar
  30. Wiedemann, P.M. et al. (1991). Information needs concerning a planned waste incineration facility. Risk analysis, 11 (2): 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiedemann, P.M. (1991). Offentlichkeitsarbeit bei Krisen. Ein Leitfaden zur besseren Kommunikation [Public relations management in crisis. A guide to better communication]. Eschborn, RKW.Google Scholar
  32. Yates, F. & Stone, E. (1992). Risk appraisal. In: Yates, F., ed. Risk-taking behaviour. Chichester, Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter M. Wiedemann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations