Abstract
Different groups of people see risks differently. This chapter discusses the public or lay view of risk.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allen, P.T. (1991). The usefulness and perceived validity of public values in nuclear waste management decisions. Guildford, Surrey, Robens Institute of Health and Safety, University of Surrey.
Bastide, S. et al. (1989). Risk perception and social acceptability of technologies: the French case. Risk analysis, 9: 215–223.
Borgmann, M. (1988). Technikakzeptanz: Geschlechtsspezifische Reaktionen? Moderne Technologien and die Reaktionen der Geschlechter aus soziologischer Perspektive [Acceptance of technology: gender-specific reactions? Modern technology and gender reactions from a sociological perspective]. Dissertation, Aachen, RWTH Aachen.
Coates, J. et al. (1986). Issues management. Mt. Airy, Lomond.
Fischer, G.W. et al. (1991). What risks are people concerned about? Risk analysis, 11 (2): 303–314.
Fuchs, D. (1991). Attitudes towards nuclear power in the context of a new type of political division. Jülich, Research Centre Jülich (Studies on Risk Communication, Volume 19). Gardner, G.T. & Gould, L.C. (1989). Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk analysis, 9: 225–242.
Harding, C.M. & Eiser, J.R. (1984). Characterizing the perceived risk of some health issues. Risk analysis, 4: 131–141.
Johnson, E.J. & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45 (1): 20–31.
Johnson, E.J. & Tversky, A. (1984). Representations of perceptions of risks. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 113: 55–70.
Kraus, N.N. & Slovic, P. (1988). Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: modelling individual and group perceptions within homogenous hazard domains. Risk analysis, 8 (3): 435–455.
Kraus, N.N. et al. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgements of chemical risks. Risk analysis, 12: 215–232.
Lappe, H. (1991). Perceptions of drug risks: individual and public response to risk. Dissertation. Berlin, Technical University of Berlin.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, McGraw-Hill. Leiss, W. (1990). A typology of risk management issues. Risk abstracts, 7 (3): 1–8.
Lichtenstein, S. et al. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of experimental psychology: human learning and memory, 4: 551–578.
MacGregor, D. & Slovic, P. (1989). Perception of risk in automotive systems. Human factors, 31 (4): 377–389.
Perusse, M. (1980). Dimensions of perception and recognition of danger. Dissertation, Birmingham, UK, University of Aston.
Renn, O. (1984). Risikowahrnehmung der Kernenergie [Risk perception of nuclear power]. Frankfurt am Main, Campus.
Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: a classification. In: Krimsky, S. & Golding, D., ed. Social theories of risk. Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers.
Renn, O. & Swaton, E. (1984). Psychological and sociological approaches to study risk perception. Environment international, 10: 557–575.
Rohrmann, B. (in press). Risk perception of different societal groups - a cross-national comparison. Australian journal of psychology.
Sjöberg, L. & Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1991). Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk analysis, 11: 607–618.
Sjöberg, L. & Weinroth, E. (1986). Risk, moral value of actions and mood. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 27: 191–208.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236: 280–285.
Slovic, P. et al. (1980). Perceived risk. In: Schwing, R.C. & Albers, W.A., ed. Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? New York, Plenum.
Slovic, P. et al. (1985). Characterizing perceived risks. In: Kates, R.W. et al., ed. Perilous progress. Managing the hazards of technologies. Boulder, CO, Westview.
Slovic, P. et al. (1989). Risk perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Sweden. In: Horrisberger, B. & Dinkel, R., ed. The perception and management of drug safety risks. Berlin, Springer, pp. 91–111.
Spreadley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165: 1232–1238.
Vlek, C. & Stallen, P.J. (1981). Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational behaviour and human performance, 28: 235–171.
Weinstein, N.D. et al. (1989). Communicating effectively about risk magnitudes. Washington, D.C, Risk Communication Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Public Planning and Evaluation (230/08–89–064)
Wiedemann, P.M. et al. (1991). Information needs concerning a planned waste incineration facility. Risk analysis, 11 (2): 229–237.
Wiedemann, P.M. (1991). Offentlichkeitsarbeit bei Krisen. Ein Leitfaden zur besseren Kommunikation [Public relations management in crisis. A guide to better communication]. Eschborn, RKW.
Yates, F. & Stone, E. (1992). Risk appraisal. In: Yates, F., ed. Risk-taking behaviour. Chichester, Wiley.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wiedemann, P.M. (1998). Understanding Risk Perception. In: Gray, P.C.R., Stern, R.M., Biocca, M. (eds) Communicating about Risks to Environment and Health in Europe. Technology, Risk, and Society, vol 11. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2894-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2894-1_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-4776-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-2894-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive