Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Risk Evaluation and Management pp 25–67Cite as

Public Perceptions of Technological Risks

A Methodological Study

  • Chapter

  • 299 Accesses

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis ((CIRA,volume 1))

Abstract

Technology that is developed for benefits and profits will always produce risks and costs. Although technology assessments evaluate and compare these consequences, balancing the trade-offs and distributing the contrary effects require political decisions, which traditionally have been carried out by “stakeholders” representing special interests. With the emergence of new “public” interest organizations, the risk management system has been confronted with additional voices seeking ways to have their points of view included in risk management decision making. Hence, intervention in the form of organized opposition to, or support of, specific technologies, installations, or products—sometimes expressed in the name of the public—has become increasingly pivotal in the outcome of policy debates (Nelkin, 1979).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Analysis Manual. 1982. Research Project on “Public Perceptions of Technological Risks: A Methodological Study,” New Haven, Connecticut: The Roper Center, Yale University, unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz. 1970. Power and Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baram, Michael S. 1982. Alternatives to Regulation. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonjean, Charles M., Terry N. Clark, and Robert L. Lineberry, eds. 1971. Community Politics. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, David M. and Kenneth H. Craik. 1982. “Contemporary Worldviews: Personal and Policy Implications,” Berkeley, California: University of California, unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, David M., Kenneth H. Craik, and Karl M. Dake. 1982. “Perceptions of Technological Risks and Their Management,” Berkeley, California: University of California, unpublished manuscript. Paper presented at Symposium on Environmental Health and People at Risk, 20th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Fred M., John L. Erlich, Jack Rothman, and John E. Tropman, eds. 1974. Strategies of Community Organization, second edition. Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Mary and Aaron Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farhar, Barbara, Patricia Weis, Charles Unseld, and Barbara Burns. 1979. “Public Opinion about Energy: A Literature Review,” Golden, Colorado: Solar Energy Research Institute Report No. SERI/TR-53-155.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Finsterbusch, Kurt and C. P. Wolf, eds. 1981. Methodology of Social Impact Assessment, second edition. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs. 1978. “How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits,” Policy Sciences, 8: 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, S. Derby, and R. Keeney. 1981. Acceptable Risk. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1974. “Attitudes Toward Objects as Predictors of Single and Multiple Behavioral Criteria,” Psychological Review, 81: 59–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, William A. 1968. Power and Discontent. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, G., A. Tiemann, L. Gould, D. DeLuca, L. Doob, and J. Stolwijk. 1982. “Risk and Benefit Perceptions, Acceptability Judgments, and Self-Reported Actions Toward Nuclear Power,” Journal of Social Psychology, 116: 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, C. 1980. “Not Quite Dr. Strangelove.” Paper presented at the Conference on Energy and Planning, Craigie College, Ayr, May 27–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohenemser, Christoph and Jeanne Kasperson, eds. 1982. Risk in the Technological Society. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, Craig R. and Frederick H. Buttel. 1982. Environment, Energy, and Society. Belmont, California: Wads worth Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, E. and A. Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47: 262 - 291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, E., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, eds. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W. and Christoph Hohenemser, eds. 1981. Technological Hazard Management. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keene, Karlyn H. and Victoria A. Sackett. 1981. “An Editors’ Report on the Yankelovich, Skelly and White Mushiness Index,” Public Opinion (April/May).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreitler, Hans and Shulamith Kreitler. 1976. Cognitive Orientation and Behavior. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreitler, Hans and Shulamith Kreitler. 1980. “The Theory of Cognitive Orientation: Widening the Scope of Behavior Prediction.” Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University, unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenski, Gerhard E. 1966. Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobel, T. E. 1982. “The Prediction of Behavior from Different Types of Beliefs,” Journal of Social Psychology, 118: 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKechnie, George E. 1974. Environmental Response Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melber, Barbara D., Stanley M. Nealey, Joy Hammersla, and William L. Rankin. 1977. “Nuclear Power and the Public: Analysis of Collected Survey Research,” Seattle, Washington: Battell Memorial Institute, Human Affairs Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. 1979. Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otway, H. 1980. “Perspective on Risk Perception: Confessions of a Disillusioned Analyst.” Paper submitted to the Oregon Risk Perception Conference, Eugene, Oregon, December 11–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otway, H. and J. Cohen. 1975. “Revealed Preferences: Comments on the Starr Benefit-Risk Relationships.” Research Memorandum 75 - 5. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otway, H. and M. Fishbein. 1977. “Public Attitudes and Decision Making.” Research Memorandum 77–54. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. 1981. Man, Technology and Risk: A Study on Intuitive Risk Assessment and Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy. Julich, Germany: Kernforschungsanlage Julich GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H. and M. Johnson. 1976. “Attitudes and Behavior,” Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 161–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. 1968. “Words, Deeds, and the Perception of Consequences and Responsibility in Action Situations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10: 232–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1977. “Behavioral Decision Theory,” Annual Review of Psychology, 28: 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1979. “Rating the Risks,” Environment, 21: 14ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk.” In R. Schwing and W. Albers, Jr., eds., Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1981. “Characterizing Perceived Risk.” In R.W. Kates and C. Hohenemser, eds., Technological Hazard Management. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Oelgeshlager, Gunn, and Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. “Regulation of Risk: A Psychological Perspective.” Paper submitted to the conference on Social Science and Regulatory Policy, Reston, Virginia, January 22–23; also: Decision Research Report 82–11. Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C. 1969. “Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk,” Science, 165: 1232–1238.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C. and C. Whipple. 1980. “Risks of Risk Decisions,” Science, 208: 1114–1119.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stolwijk, Jan, Donald R. DeLuca, Leroy C. Gould, Leonard W. Doob, Gerald T. Gardner, and Adrian Tiemann. 1981. “Final Report to Northeast Utilities,” New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlek, C., and P. Stallen. 1979. “Persoonlijke Beoordeling van Risico’s,” University of Groningen, Institute for Experimental Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigel, R., and L. Newman. 1976. “Increasing Attitude-Behavior Correspondence by Broadening the Scope of the Behavioral Measure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33: 793–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zetterberg, Hans L. 1980. “The Swedish Public and Nuclear Energy: The Referendum 1980,” Stockholm, Sweden, unpublished manuscript. Madrid, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Roper Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 06510, USA

    Donald R. DeLuca, Jan A. J. Stolwijk & Wendy Horowitz

Authors
  1. Donald R. DeLuca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan A. J. Stolwijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wendy Horowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Policy Research and Analysis, Policy Sciences Section, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 20550, USA

    Vincent T. Covello

  2. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, USA

    Joshua Menkes

  3. Department of Public Administration, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York, 12222, USA

    Jeryl Mumpower

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1986 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

DeLuca, D.R., Stolwijk, J.A.J., Horowitz, W. (1986). Public Perceptions of Technological Risks. In: Covello, V.T., Menkes, J., Mumpower, J. (eds) Risk Evaluation and Management. Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9245-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2103-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation