Rating the Risks: The Structure Of Expert And Lay Perceptions

  • Paul Slovic
  • Baruch Fischhoff
  • Sarah Lichtenstein
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 4)


People respond to the hazards they perceive. If their perceptions are faulty, efforts at public and environmental protection are likely to be misdirected. In order to improve hazard management, a risk assessment industry has developed over the last decade which combines the efforts of physical, biological, and social scientists in an attempt to identify hazards and measure the frequency and magnitude of their consequences (1).


Risk Perception Flood Plain Fault Tree Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hazard Management 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C.H. Green, “Risk: Attitudes and Beliefs,” in Behavior in Fires, ed. D.V. Canter (Wiley, New York, in press)Google Scholar
  2. R.W. Kates, Risk Assessment of Environmental Hazard (Wiley, New York, 1978)Google Scholar
  3. H.J. Otway, D. Maurer, and K. Thomas. “Nuclear Power: The Question of Public Acceptance,” Futures, 10 (April, 1978), 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 2.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, ” Science, 185 (1974), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 3.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 4 (1973), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 4.
    S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs, “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events. ” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4 (1978), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 5.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein, “Fault Trees: Sensitivity of Estimated Failure Probabilities to Problem Representation, ” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4 (1978), 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 6.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein, “Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence, ” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3 (1977), 552–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff, and L.D. Phillips, “Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art,” Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs, ed. H. Jungermann and G. de Zeeuw ( D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    M. Hynes and E. Vanmarcke, “Reliability of Embankment Performance Predictions,” Proceedings of the ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference ( University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ont., 1976 ).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants (WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014); Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Risk Assessment Review Group. Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG/CR-0400; Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC. 1978 ).Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Natural Resources. Teton Dam Disaster: Hearings… (94th Cong., 2d sess.; Government Printing Office. Washington. DC. 1976 ).Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    R.W. Kates. Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management (Research Paper. 78; Department of Geography. University of Chicago. Chicago. IL. 1962 ).Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    K. Borch. The Economics of Uncertainty (Princeton University Press. Princeton. NJ, 1968 ).Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    Doubts Linger on Cyclamate Risks.” Eugene Register-Guard. 14 January 1976.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    E.E. David, “One-Armed Scientists?,” Science, 189 (1975) 891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 16.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic. S. Lichtenstein. S. Read, and B. Combs. “How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes towards Technological Risks and Benefits,” Policy Sciences. 8 (1978), 127–152; P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, “Expressed Preferences,” unpublished manuscript ( Decision Research, Eugene, OR, 1978 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 17.
    The correlations between perceived risk and the annual frequencies of death were.92 for the experts and.62,.50, and.56 for the League of Women Voters, students, and Active Club samples, respectively.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    W. Lowrance. Of Acceptable Risk ( William Kaufman. Los Altos, CA. 1976 ).Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    The multiple correlation between the risk judgments of the LOWV members and students and a linear combination of their fatality estimates, disaster multipliers, dread ratings, and severity ratings was.95.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    A secondary finding was that both experts and lay persons believed that the risks from most of the activities were better known to science than to the individuals at risk. The experts believed that the discrepancy in knowledge was particularly great for vaccinations. X-rays, antibiotics, alcohol, and home appliances. The only activities whose risks were judged better known to those exposed were mountain climbing, fire fighting, hunting, skiing, and police work.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    L. Ross. “The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings.” Advances in Social Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz ( Academic Press. New York. NY. 1977 ).Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    A.E. Green and A.J. Bourne, Reliability Technology (Wiley Interscience. New York. NY. 1972 ).Google Scholar
  25. 23.
    D. Nelkin. “The Role of Experts on a Nuclear Siting Controversy.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 30 (1974). 29–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Slovic
    • 1
  • Baruch Fischhoff
    • 1
  • Sarah Lichtenstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision Research, A Branch of PerceptronicsEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations