Abstract
Risk is generally understood as a possibility of an event with potentially negative consequences. In order to judge the risk of an event or activity, individuals need to perceive and mentally represent this possibility and the associated negative consequences. It is therefore often more correct to talk about risk as a subjective construct. Subjective risk perception has been broadly studied, with an emphasis on the acceptance of different kinds of dangers at both individual and societal levels. Research focuses on such things as the cognitive and emotional characteristics of risk perception (i.e., the psychological approach) as well as on the sociocultural aspects of risks (i.e., cultural theory). This chapter discusses the different layers that characterize the definition of risk and examines some of the scientific approaches to the study of risk. It also includes an analysis of the research methodology on risk perception and highlights the connection between risk and the possible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision making, 1(1), 33.
Dickert, S., Västfjäll, D., Mauro, R., & Slovic, P. (2015). The feeling of risk: Implications for risk perception and communication. In The Sage handbook of risk communication (pp. 41–54). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.
Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000a). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.
Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000b). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The white male effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2(2), 159–172.
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(2), 127–152.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697.
Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311.
Mamadouh, V. (1999). Grid-group cultural theory: An introduction. GeoJournal, 47(3), 395–409.
Rohrmann, B., & Renn, O. (2000). Risk perception research. In Cross-cultural risk perception (pp. 11–53). Boston: Springer.
Sjöberg, L. (2000). The methodology of risk perception research. Quality and Quantity, 34(4), 407–418.
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689–701.
Slovic, P. E. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1981). Rating the risks. In Risk/benefit analysis in water resources planning and management (pp. 193–217). Boston: Springer.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology (pp. 91–125). Boulder: Westview.
Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254(5038), 1603–1607.
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: An International Journal, 24(2), 311–322.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.
Sunstein, C. R. (2007). On the divergent American reactions to terrorism and climate change. Columbia Law Review, 107, 503.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529–554.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.
UNHCR. (n.d.). Operational portal. Retrieved from https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 806.
Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 1–8.
Wilson, R. S., Zwickle, A., & Walpole, H. (2019). Developing a broadly applicable measure of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 39(4), 777–791.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Vacondio, M., Dickert, S. (2020). Risk. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_81-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_81-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98390-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98390-5
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences