Suchergebnisse

Risk perception is a phenomenon in search of an explanation. Several approaches are discussed in this paper. Technical risk estimates are sometimes a potent factor in accounting for perceived risk, but in many important applications it is not. Heuristics and biases, mainly availability, account for only a minor portion of risk perception, and media contents have not been clearly implicated in risk perception. The psychometric model is probably the leading contender in the field, but its explanatory value is only around 20% of the variance of raw data. Adding a factor of "unnatural risk" considerably improves the psychometric model. Cultural Theory, on the other hand, has not been able to explain more than 5–10% of the variance of perceived risk, and other value scales have similarly failed. A model is proposed in which attitude, risk sensitivity, and specific fear are used as explanatory variables; this model seems to explain well over 30–40% of the variance and is thus more promising than previous approaches. The model offers a different type of psychological explanation of risk perception, and it has many implications, e.g., a different approach to the relationship between attitude and perceived risk, as compared with the usual cognitive analysis of attitude.

Risk perception is sometimes measured by means of judgments about worry, sometimes as perceived risk more directly. However, perceived level of risk calls for a more intellectual judgment and worry tends to refer to emotional reactions. These two are therefore not the same and need not be strongly correlated. Results reported here show that perceived risk and worry are indeed weakly correlated, both for generalized worry and for more specific measures of worry matched with the same hazard as risk ratings. A distinction is suggested between cognitive, abstract hazards and concrete, sensory hazards, with implications for the worry‐perceived risk relationship. It was furthermore found by means of cluster analysis that there were groups of subject displaying different dynamics of risk and worry.

Studies of risk perception examine the opinions people express when they are asked, in various ways, to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies. This research aims to aid risk analysis and societal decision making by (i) improving methods for eliciting opinions about risk, (ii) providing a basis for understanding and anticipating public responses to hazards, and (iii) improving the communication of risk information among laypeople, technical experts, and policy makers.

RISK PERCEPTION THEORIES AND APPROACHES -- RISK PERCEPTION THEORIES AND APPROACHES -- Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- Chapter 1 RISK PERCEPTION: WHY DIFFERENT THEORIES? -- Abstract -- 1. Introduction -- 2. What Is Risk Perception? -- 3. Different Theories -- 3.1. Psychology Approach -- 3.2. Cognitive Approach -- 3.3. Environmental Psychology Approach -- 3.4. Anthropology/Sociology Approach -- 3.5. Cultural Theory -- 3.6. Social Amplification of Risk Framework -- 3.7. Interface Theory -- 4. The Reason for having Distinct Theories -- Conclusion

Drawing on the literature from the fields of cognitive and social psychology, sociology, and political science, we discuss perceptions of risks and benefits, the impact of perceptions and personal preferences on choice and behavior, the question of "socially acceptable" thresholds of risk, and the analytic and descriptive means by which such thresholds might be identified. We hypothesize that existing psychometric methods may be adapted for the scaling of perceived benefit. We review factors hampering the application of formal methodologies in the resolution of controversial public debates, and express doubt about the identification of a socially acceptable threshold of risk. We argue that the emphasis of research in this field should be shifted toward explicating the use of risk and benefit perceptions in the process of personal decision‐making. Finally, we suggest several social science research approaches that may be used to address these issues.

Abstract There is no human activity that is risk free, including those most trivial and essential for survival, such as eating. Various factors impact the risk perception of a population, such as whether the risk is voluntary, known, brings some benefits or whether the information about the risk is provided by sources seen as trusted. Furthermore, regional and cultural aspects, gender and age can also have an impact on risk perception, and the level of scientific knowledge of the individual about the risks has in many cases little impact on the risk perception. In most countries, the perception of consumers to certain risks present in food, including genetically modified organisms (GMO), pesticides and food additives is high, probably due to the lack of confidence on the industry and governmental authorities that are responsible to control the risks. Food that are considered more natural, such as organic food and "GMO free", are normally perceived as less risky/more healthy. Knowing the perception of the population regarding the risks present in food is essential to design clear and transparent risk communication strategies, which should consider, in addition to scientific information, the subjective aspects that affects the risk perception.

Abstract There is no human activity that is risk free, including those most trivial and essential for survival, such as eating. Various factors impact the risk perception of a population, such as whether the risk is voluntary, known, brings some benefits or whether the information about the risk is provided by sources seen as trusted. Furthermore, regional and cultural aspects, gender and age can also have an impact on risk perception, and the level of scientific knowledge of the individual about the risks has in many cases little impact on the risk perception. In most countries, the perception of consumers to certain risks present in food, including genetically modified organisms (GMO), pesticides and food additives is high, probably due to the lack of confidence on the industry and governmental authorities that are responsible to control the risks. Food that are considered more natural, such as organic food and "GMO free", are normally perceived as less risky/more healthy. Knowing the perception of the population regarding the risks present in food is essential to design clear and transparent risk communication strategies, which should consider, in addition to scientific information, the subjective aspects that affects the risk perception.