Abstract
How people think about a hazard often deviates from experts’ assessment of its probability and severity. The aim of this chapter is to clarify how people perceive risks. We thereby focus on two important research lines: (1) research on the psychometric paradigm, which explains variations between the perceptions of different risks, and (2) research on factors that may determine an individual’s perception of a risk (i.e., perceived benefits, trust, knowledge, affective associations, values, and fairness). Findings from studies about various risks (e.g., genetically modified organisms, food additives, and climate change) are reviewed in order to provide practical implications for risk management and communication. Overall, this chapter shows that the roles of benefit perception, trust, knowledge, affective associations, personal values, and fairness are not always straightforward; different factors appear involved in the perception of different hazards. We recommend practitioners, when they encounter a new hazard, to consult previous studies about similar hazards in order to identify the factors that describe the public’s perception of the new hazard.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arvai, J., & Post, K. (2012). Risk management in a developing country context: Improving decisions about point-of-use water treatment among the rural poor in Africa. Risk Analysis, 32, 67–80.
Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1–16.
Baum, A., Fleming, R., & Davidson, L. M. (1983). Natural disaster and technological catastrophe. Environment and Behavior, 15, 333–354.
Bearth, A., Cousin, M.-E., & Siegrist, M. (2014a). The consumer’s perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 38, 14–23.
Bearth, A., Cousin, M.-E., & Siegrist, M. (2014b). Poultry consumers’ behaviour, risk perception and knowledge related to campylobacteriosis and domestic food safety. Food Control, 44, 166–176.
Besley, J. C. (2010). Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 32, 256–280.
Besley, J. C. (2012). Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making? Risk Analysis, 32, 25–38.
Böhm, G. (2003). Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist versus ethical evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 199–212.
Böhm, G., & Pfister, H. R. (2000). Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks. Acta Psychologica, 104, 317–337.
Bostrom, A. (2008). Lead is like mercury: Risk comparisons, analogies and mental models. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 99–117.
Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technology: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication, 32, 514–538.
Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). The power of association: Its impact on willingness to buy GM food. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 17, 1142–1155.
Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2016). The stability of risk and benefit perceptions: A longitudinal study assessing the perception of biotechnology. Journal of Risk Research, 19, 461–475.
Cousin, M.-E., & Siegrist, M. (2010). The public’s knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences. Health, Risk & Society, 12, 231–250.
Davidson, R. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302–339.
de Groot, J. I. M., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 33, 307–317.
de Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2010). Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 30, 1363–1373.
Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: Implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 30, 1116–1128.
Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2012a). Fear and anger: Antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 435–446.
Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2012b). Mobile communication in the public mind: Insights from free associations related to mobile phone base stations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 18, 649–668.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
EFSA (European Food and Safety Authority). (2006). Opinion of the scientific panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) related to a new long-term carcinogenicity study on aspartame. The EFSA Journal, 356, 1–44.
Evans, G., & Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 57–74.
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.
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, 127–152.
Harding, C. M., & Eiser, J. R. (1984). Characterising the perceived risks and benefits of some health issues. Risk Analysis, 4, 131–141.
House, L., Lusk, J., Jaeger, S., Traill, W. B., Moore, M., Valli, C., … Yee, W. M. (2005). Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioforum, 7, 113–123.
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Cohen, G. L., Gastil, J., & Slovic, P. (2010). Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 501–516.
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 465–505.
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.
Karpowicz-Lazreg, C., & Mullet, E. (1993). Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis, 13, 253–258.
Keller, C., Bostrom, A., Kuttschreuter, M., Savadori, L., Spence, A., & White, M. (2012). Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception: A review of conceptual approaches of the past 40 years and suggestions for future research. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 237–256.
Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. (2009). Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Analysis, 29, 1255–1264.
Keller, C., Visschers, V., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis, 32, 464–477.
Kreuter, M., Farrell, D., Olevitch, L., & Brennan, L. (2012). Tailoring health messages: Customizing communication with computer technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, S227–S232.
L’Orange Seigo, S., Arvai, J., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Predictors of risk and benefit perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in regions with different stages of deployment. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 25, 23–32.
Lai, J. C.-l., & Tao, J. (2003). Perception of environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese. Risk Analysis, 23, 669–684.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.
Li, M., & Chapman, G. B. (2012). Why do people like natural? Instrumental and ideational bases for the naturalness preference. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2859–2878.
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.
Morgan, D. L., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. London: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1427–1453.
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Prior attitudes, salient value similarity, and dimensionality: Toward an integrative model of trust in risk regulation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1674–1700.
Roth, E., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L., & Bostrom, A. (1990). What do we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Analysis, 10, 375–387.
Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., et al. (2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 147–154.
Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C., Conti, J., & Herr Harthorn, B. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 752–758.
Savadori, L., Rumiati, R., & Bonini, N. (1998). Expertise and regional differences in risk perception: The case of Italy. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 101–113.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis, 35, 2183–2201.
Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–203.
Siegrist, M., Connor, M., & Keller, C. (2012). Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction, and the acceptance of GM field experiments. Risk Analysis, 32, 1394–1403.
Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459–466.
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713–720.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353–362.
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25, 211–222.
Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2006). Lay people’s perception of food hazards: Comparing aggregated data and individual data. Appetite, 47, 324–332.
Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B. (2014). Human and nature-caused hazards: The affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Analysis, 34, 1482–1494.
Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. H. M. (2013). Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59, 112–119.
Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 588–597.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.
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, 311–322.
Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603–1607.
Slovic, P., Kraus, N., & Covello, V. T. (1990). What should we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Analysis, 10, 389–392.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.
Szalay, L. B., & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective meaning and culture: An assessment through word associations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., & Slovic, P. (1988). Societal risks seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111–130.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Climatic Change, 114, 189–209.
Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 117–125.
Van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 273–300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Verplanken, B. (1989). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environment and Behavior, 21, 371–392.
Visschers, V. H. M., Backhans, A., Collineau, L., Iten, D., Loesken, S., Postma, M., … Stärk, K. D. C. (2015). Perception of antimicrobial usage, antimicrobial resistance and policy measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in convenient samples of Belgian, French, German, Swedish and Swiss pig farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 19, 10–20.
Visschers, V. H. M., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy, 39, 3621–3629.
Visschers, V. H. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. F., & de Vries, N. K. (2007). How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Analysis, 27, 715–727.
Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 46, 292–300.
Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 33, 333–347.
Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Find the differences and the similarities: Relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 117–130.
Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H. M., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2012). The role of convictions and trust for public protest potential in the case of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 18, 919–932.
Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 6557–6562.
Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29, 425–437.
Wolfenbarger, L. L., & Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088–2093.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M. (2018). Differences in Risk Perception Between Hazards and Between Individuals. In: Raue, M., Lermer, E., Streicher, B. (eds) Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92476-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92478-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)