Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Perceived Safety pp 61–81Cite as

Psychological Perspectives on Perceived Safety: Zero-Risk Bias, Feelings and Learned Carelessness

Part of the Risk Engineering book series (RISK)

Abstract

In this chapter, we introduce three common decision-making strategies that humans apply in situations of risk and uncertainty. Due to cognitive limitations, human beings often simplify complex decisions and use heuristics. People strive for safety, but tend to overweigh the value of zero risk in comparison to very small risks. Choosing the zero-risk solution is a heuristic that reduces complexity by eliminating the need to weigh statistical information, but may result in suboptimal decisions, which has been termed the zero-risk bias. Another strategy is rooted in the way humans process information. According to dual-process theories, information is processed intuitively (System 1) or analytically (System 2). Intuitive reactions, including affect and emotions, usually precede and often override analytical (cognitive) evaluations. The affect heuristic states that people judge risk information based on subtle feelings of positivity or negativity. A good feeling can therefore result in perceived safety despite diverging statistical information. Finally, one’s attitude toward risks may be acquired through certain learning experiences. People who engage in risky behavior without encountering negative consequences may conclude that ‘everything is fine and will remain fine,’ which has been termed learned carelessness. Advantages and disadvantages of these strategies as well as practical implications, including decision aids and nudges, are discussed.

Keywords

  • Certainty effect
  • Prospect theory
  • Affect heuristic
  • Selective information search
  • Unrealistic optimis
  • Illusion of control

Martina Raue and Elisabeth Schneider contributed equally to this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Nelson et al. (2016) for a recent study on rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085–1096.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole Americaine [The rational individual’s behavior in the presence of risk: Critique of the postulates and axioms of the American school]. Econometrica, 21, 503–546. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907921.

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1082–1095.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6), 359–372.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., Gowda, R., & Kunreuther, H. (1993). Attitudes toward managing hazardous waste: What should be cleaned up and who should pay for It? Risk Analysis, 13(2), 183–192.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Review, 117(3), 497–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336–372.

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2013). Behavioral economics and the retirement savings crisis. Science, 339, 1152–1153.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, T., & Glöckner, A. (2010). Intuition in judgment and decision making: Extensive thinking without effort. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 279–294.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bickel, W. K., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Toward a behavioral economic understanding of drug dependence: delay discounting processes. Addiction, 96, 73–86.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(4), 263–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chauvin, B. (2018). Individual differences in the judgment of risks: Sociodemographic characteristics, cultural orientation, and level of expertise. In M. Raue, E. Lermer, & B. Streicher (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis—Theory, models and applications (pp. 37–61). New York: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D., & Cox, A. D. (2001). Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing, 65, 91–103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty (pp. 249–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eller, E., Streicher, B., & Lermer, E. (2012). Psychologie und Risikomanagement: Warum wir Risiken falsch einschätzen [Psychology and risk management: Why we judge risks wrongly]. Risiko Manager, 23, 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454–459.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 41–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (1997). Eine Theorie der gelernten Sorglosigkeit [A theory of learned carelessness]. In Bericht über den 40. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (pp. 604–611).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, D., Ulrich, B., Streicher, B., Schneider, E., & Lermer, E. (2016). Theorie der gelernten Sorglosigkeit [Theory of learned carelessness]. In H.-W. Bierhoff & D. Frey (Eds.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie. Sozialpsychologie [Encyclopedia of Psychology] (pp. 429–469). Göttingen, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Retamero, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2013). Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients. Social Science and Medicine, 83, 27–33.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. A. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301–1307.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2015). On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 361–383.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & The ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. (2005). Adaptive heuristics. Econometrica, 73(5), 1401–1430.

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2001). A normative, rational decision theory. In R. Hastie & R. M. Dawes (Eds.), Rational choice in an uncertain world. The psychology of judgement and decision making (pp. 249–287). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113(3), 439–460.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbig, B. E., Scholl, S. G., & Pohl, R. F. (2010). Think or blink—Is the recognition heuristic an “intuitive” strategy? Judgment and Decision Making, 5(4), 300–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage, U., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2018). Improving Understanding of health-relevant numerical information. In M. Raue, E. Lermer, & B. Streicher (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis—Theory, models and applications (pp. 279–298). New York: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage, U., & Marewski, J. N. (2015). Unveiling the lady in black: Modeling and aiding intuition. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 145–163.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffrage, U., Lindsey, S., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Communicating statistical information. Science, 290(5500), 2261–2262.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 557.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–292.

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, K. N., Winston, G. C., & Santiesteban, M. (2005). Impatience and grades: Delay-discount rates correlate negatively with college GPA. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(3), 213–222.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. A., Calderwood, R., & Clinton-Cirocco, A. (1986). Rapid decision making on the fire ground. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 30(6), 576–580.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lauriola, M., & Weller, J. (2018). Beyond daredevils: Risk taking from a temperament perspective. In M. Raue, E. Lermer, & B. Streicher (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis—Theory, models and applications (pp. 3–369). New York: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lermer, E., Streicher, B., Sachs, R., Raue, M., & Frey, D. (2016). Thinking concretely increases the perceived likelihood of risks: The effect of construal level on risk estimation. Risk Analysis, 623–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473–493.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 799–823.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lilli, W., & Frey, D. (1993). Die Hypothesentheorie der sozialen Wahrnehmung [Theory of hypothesis-based social perception]. In D. Frey & M. Irle (Eds.), Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, Band 1: Kognitive Theorien [Theories in social psychology, volume 1: Cognitive theories] (2nd ed., pp. 49–80). Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. Davidson, H. Goldsmith, & K. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 619–642). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Science, 36(4), 422–435.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, G. J., & Johnson, P. S. (2010). A delay-discounting primer. In G. J. Madden & W. K. Bickel (Eds.), Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting (pp. 11–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mather, M., Mazar, N., Gorlick, M. A., Lighthall, N. R., Burgeno, J., Schoeke, A., et al. (2012). Risk preferences and aging: The “certainty effect” in older adults’ decision making. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 801–816.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, J. (2004). Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work. Journal of Safety Research, 35(3), 275–285.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. D., O’Meara, E. S., Kerlikowske, K., Balch, S., & Miglioretti, D. (2016). Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: An analysis of registry data. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(4), 226–235.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Raue, M., & Scholl, S. G. (2018). The use of heuristics in decision-making under risk and uncertainty. In M. Raue, E. Lermer, & B. Streicher (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis—Theory, models and applications (pp. 153–179). New York, NY: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Raue, M., D’Ambrosio, L. A., & Coughlin, J. F. (2018). The power of peers: Prompting savings behavior through social comparison. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raue, M., Streicher, B., Lermer, E., & Frey, D. (2015). How far does it feel? Construal level and decisions under risk. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 256–264.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, I., Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1993). Framing effects in the evaluation of multiple risk reduction. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6(2), 145–159.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185–190.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schlag, P. (2010). Nudge, Choice Architecture, and Libertarian Paternalism. Michigan Law Review, 108(6), 913–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, E., Streicher, B., Lermer, E., Sachs, R., & Frey, D. (2017). Measuring the zero-risk bias: Methodological artefact or decision-making strategy? Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 225(1), 31–44.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing Science, 26(6), 742–757.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, J. L., Lane, D. J., Tapscott, R. L., & Gentile, D. A. (2011). Susceptible to social influence: Risky “driving” in response to peer pressure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 773–797.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). Investment behavior and the negative side of emotion. Psychological Science, 16(6), 435–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1967). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review, 74(1), 29–39.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. Psychological Review, 18(8), 503–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322–325.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2003). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 1–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 271.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M. L., & MacGregor, D. G. (2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology, 24(4S), S35.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(05), 701–717.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Statistisches Bundesamt. (2015). Gestorbene durch Unfälle. Retrieved June 12, 2018, from https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Gesundheit/Todesursachen/Tabellen/Sterbefaelle_Unfaelle.html.

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2), 121–136.

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47(2), 143–148.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2009). Making sense of life: The existential self trying to deal with personal uncertainty. Psychological Inquiry, 20(4), 197–217.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bos, K., Poortvliet, P. M., Maas, M., Miedema, J., & van den Ham, E.-J. (2005). An enquiry concerning the principles of cultural norms and values: The impact of uncertainty and mortality salience on reactions to violations and bolstering of cultural worldviews. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 91–113.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K. (1997). Alarmist decisions with divergent risk information. The Economic Journal, 107(445), 1657–1670.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi, W. K., Magat, W. A., & Huber, J. (1987). An investigation of the rationality of consumer valuations of multiple health risks. The Rand Journal of Economics, 18(4), 465.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2018). Differences in risk perception between hazards and between individuals. In M. Raue, E. Lermer, & B. Streicher (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis—Theory, models and applications (pp. 63–80). New York: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wakslak, C., & Trope, Y. (2009). The effect of construal level on subjective probability estimates. Psychological Science, 20(1), 52–58.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246(4935), 1232–1234.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • White, A. R. (1961). Carelessness, indifference and recklessness. The Modern Law Review, 24(5), 592–595.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, T. M. (2013). Nudging and manipulation. Political Studies, 61(2), 341–355.

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(6), 495–506.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Adam Felts for proofreading this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AgeLab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Martina Raue

  2. Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Leopoldstr. 13, 80802, Munich, Germany

    Elisabeth Schneider

Authors
  1. Martina Raue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elisabeth Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Raue .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. AgeLab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Dr. Martina Raue

  2. Institute of Psychology—RiskLab, UMIT—Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tyrol, Tyrol, Austria

    Bernhard Streicher

  3. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Bavaria, Germany

    Eva Lermer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Raue, M., Schneider, E. (2019). Psychological Perspectives on Perceived Safety: Zero-Risk Bias, Feelings and Learned Carelessness. In: Raue, M., Streicher, B., Lermer, E. (eds) Perceived Safety. Risk Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11456-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11456-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11454-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11456-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

search

Navigation