Risk Perception Research

An Introduction
  • Bernd Rohrmann
  • Ortwin Renn
Chapter
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 13)

Summary

This first chapter provides a brief review of the present knowledge on risk perception and elucidates the psychological and social factors that shape the experience of risk. It aims at integrating the results of psychological, sociological, and cultural studies and presents the major findings of the social sciences as they seem relevant for a deeper understanding of risk and the role of risk perception for risk management. A second objective is to review comparative studies about risk perception in different cultures and nations and the approaches utilized in such research.

After discussing definitions of risk, two sections introduce the methodology of cross-cultural risk research. Two further sections deal with core substantive issues, including heuristics, hazard features, psychological facets of hazard appraisals, pertinent group processes and societal factors determining risk perception. Finally, the relevance and utilization of risk perception research for the public discourse about hazards and implications for managing risks are outlined.

Keywords

Risk Analysis Risk Perception Cultural Theory Risk Research Technological Risk 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P. 1994. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, F. W. 1987. Towards a holistic appreciation of risk: the challenge for communicators and policymakers. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 138–143.Google Scholar
  3. Appelbaum, R. P. 1977. The future is made, not predicted: technocratic planners vs. public interests. Society, 5, 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arabie, P., Maschmeyer, C. 1988. Some current models for the perception and judgment of risk. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 300–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastide, S., Moatti, J.-P., Pages, J.-P., Fagnani, F. 1989. Risk perception and social acceptability of technologies: the french case. Risk Analysis, 9, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechmann, G. (Hg.) 1993. Risiko und Gesellschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. Original: Beck, U.1986. Die Risikogesellschaft: auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Bellrose, C., Pilisuk, M. 1991. Vocational risk tolerance and perceptions of occupational hazards. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Binswanger, H. C. 1990. Neue Dimensionen des Risikos. Zeitschrift fir Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 13, 103–118.Google Scholar
  10. Borcherding, K., Rohrmann, B., Eppel, T. 1986. A psychological study on the cognitive structure of risk evaluations. In: Brehmer, B., Jungermann, H., Lourens, P., Sevon, G. (Eds.): New directions in research on decision making, Amsterdam: North- Holland, 245–262.Google Scholar
  11. Bostrom, A. 1990. A mental models approach to exploring perceptions of hazardous processes. Diss. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  12. Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., Morgan, M. G. 1992. Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 85–100.Google Scholar
  13. Bradbury, J. A. 1989. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 14, 380–399.Google Scholar
  14. Brehmer, B. 1987. The psychology of risk. In: Singleton, W. T., Hoyden, J. (Eds.): Risk and decision, New York: Wiley, 25–39.Google Scholar
  15. Brehmer, B. 1994. Some notes on psychological research related to risk. In Brehmer, B., Sahlin, N. E. (Eds.): Future risks and risk management, pp. 79–91. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Brengelmann, J. C. 1991. Die Lust auf Spiel und Risiko. Zürich: Varia Press.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, J. M. 1988. Psychological aspects of environmental risks from industrial and nuclear power plants. In: Sime, J. D. (Ed.): Safety in built environment, London, New York: E., F.N. Spon, 337–347.Google Scholar
  18. Brun, W. 1992. Cognitive components in risk perception: Natural versus manmade risks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 117–132.Google Scholar
  19. Burns, W. J., Clemen, R. T. 1993. Covariance structure models and influence diagrams. Management Science, 39, 816–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clarke, L. 1989, Acceptable risk: making decisions in a toxic environment. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Cohrssen, J. J., Covello, V. T. 1989. Risk analysis: a guide to principles and methods for analyzing health and environmental risks. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality.Google Scholar
  22. Covello, V. T. 1983, The perception of technological risks: a literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., Pavlova, M. 1989. Effective risk communication. The role and responsibility of government and non-government organizations. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  24. Covello, V. T.,, Merkhofer, M. W. 1993. Risk assessment methods: approaches for assessing health and environmental risk. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  25. Cvetkovich, G., Earle, T. C. 1991. Risk and culture. Special Issue, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology.Google Scholar
  26. Cvetkovich, G., Earle, T. C. 1992. Environmental hazards and the public. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Daele, W. van den 1993. Backgrounds to the perception of risks in genetic engineering: concepts of nature and the semantics of risk. In: Bayerische-Rueck (Ed.): Risk is a construct, München: Knesebeck, 157–178.Google Scholar
  28. Dake, K. 1991. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk–An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dake, K. 1992. Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social issues, 48, 21–37.Google Scholar
  30. Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: Concepts of Pollution of Taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Douglas, M. 1985. Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Douglas, M., Wildaysky, A. 1982. Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Drottz-Sjöberg, B. 1991. Risk perceptions and definitions of risk. In: Drottz-Sjöberg, B. (Ed.): Perceptions of Risk, Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, 163–214.Google Scholar
  34. Drottz-Sjöberg, B., Sjöberg, L. 1991. Adolescents attitudes to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. In: Drottz-Sjöberg, B. (Ed.): Perception of Risk, Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, 109–135.Google Scholar
  35. Durkheim, E. 1933, The division of labor in society. The Free Press, New York (orig. 1893 ).Google Scholar
  36. Earle, T. C., Lindell, M. K. 1984. Public perceptions of industrial risks: A free-response approach. In: Waller, R. A., Covello, V. T. (Eds.): Low-probability/high-consequence risk analysis, New York: Plenum Press, 531–550.Google Scholar
  37. Earle, T. C., Cvetkovich, G. 1988. Plattitudes and comparisons: A critique of current (wrong) directions in risk communication. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society of Risk Analysis.Google Scholar
  38. Edwards, W., Winterfeldt, D. v. 1987. Public values in risk debates. Risk Analysis, 7, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eiser, J. R., Hannover, B., Mann, L., Morin, M., Pligt, J. v. d., Webley, P. 1990. Nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl: A cross-national study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 101–110.Google Scholar
  40. Englander, T., Farago, K., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. 1986. A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Journal of Social Behavior, 1, 55–66.Google Scholar
  41. Evers, A., Nowotny, H. 1987. Über den Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Die Entdeckung der Gestaltbarkeit von Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  42. Femers, S. 1993. Information über technische Risiken. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
  43. Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
  44. Fiorino, D. J. 1989. Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 9, 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fischer, G. W., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Nair, I., Lave, L. B. 1991. What risks are people concerned about? Risk Analysis, 11, 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fischhoff, B. 1989. Risk: a guide to controversy. In: National Research Council: Improving risk communication, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, Appendix C.Google Scholar
  47. Fischhoff, B. 1994. Acceptable risk: a conceptual proposal. Risk: Health, Safety, Environment, 5, 1–28.Google Scholar
  48. Fischhoff, B. 1996. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., READ, S., COMBS, B. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risk and benefits. Policy Science, 9, 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, R., Lichtenstein, S. 1981. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgements about risk. In: O’Riordan, T., Turner, R. K. (Eds.): Progress in resource management and environmental planning, Chichester: Wiley, 161–202.Google Scholar
  51. Fischhoff, B. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, R, Derby, S. L. and Keeney, R. L. 1981. Acceptable risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  52. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S. R., Hope, C. 1984. Defining risk. Policy Sciences, 17, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Quadrel, M. J. 1993. Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 14, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Freudenburg, W. R. 1988. Perceived risk, real risk: social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gardner, G. T., Gould, L. C. 1989. Public perceptions of the risk and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 9, 2, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Goszcynska, M., Tyszka, T., Slovic, R. 1991. Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 179–193.Google Scholar
  57. Gould, L.C., Gardner, G.T. De Luca, D. R. Tiemann, A., Doob, L. W,, Stolwjik, J.A.J. 1988. Perceptions of technological risks and benefits. Russel Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Gregory, R., Mendelsohn, R. 1993. Perceived risk, dread and benefits. Risk Analysis, 13, 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gregory, R., Lichtenstein, S. 1994. A hint of risk: Tradeoffs between quantitative and qualitative risk factors. Risk Analysis, 14, 199–207.Google Scholar
  60. Guerlin, B. 1991. Psychological perspectives on risk perception and response. In: Handmer, J., Dutton, B., Guerin, B., Smithson, M. (Eds.): New perspectives on uncertainty and risk, Canberra: ANU/ CRES, 79–86.Google Scholar
  61. Haller, M. 1990. Risiko-Management and Risiko-Dialog. In: Schuez, M. (Hg.): Risiko and Wagnis. Die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt, Pfullingen: Neske, 229–256.Google Scholar
  62. Handmer, J., Dutton, B., Guerin, B., Smithson, M. 1991. New perspectives on uncertainty and risk. Canberra: ANU.Google Scholar
  63. Hartenian, L. S., Bobko, R., Berger, P. K. 1993. An empirical validation of bipolar risk perception scaling methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Heimer, C. A. 1988. Social structure, psychology, and the estimation of risk. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hillgartner, S. 1992. The social construction of risk objects: Or, how to pry open networks of risk. In: Short, J. F., Clarke, L. (Eds.): Organizations, Uncertainties and Risk, Westview, Boulder, Co., pp. 39–53.Google Scholar
  66. Hinman, G. W., Rosa, E. A., Kleinhesselink, R. R., Lowinger, T. C. 1993. Perception of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis, 13, 449–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. HMSO, 1988. The tolerability of risk from nuclear power stations. Health and Safety Executive, London.Google Scholar
  68. Hoefer, M. P., Raju, V. R. 1989. Technological risk perception: similarities and dissimilarities in french and american samples. In: Society for Risk Analysis (Ed.): Proceedings, Annual Meeting 1989, 1–6.Google Scholar
  69. Hohenemser, C., Kates, R. W., Slovic, P. 1983. The nature of technological hazards. Science, 220, 378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Holtgrave, D., Weber, E. U. 1993. Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. Risk Analysis, 13, 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Horvath, P., Zuckerman, M. 1992. Sensation seeking, risk appraisal and behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. IEC, 1993. Guidelines for risk analysis of technological systems. Report IEC-CD (Sec) 381 issued by the Technical Committee QMS/23. European Community, Brussels.Google Scholar
  73. Jianguang, Z. 1994. Environmental hazards in the Chinese public’s eyes. Risk Analysis, 14, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Johnson, B. B. 1987. The environmentalist movement and grip/group analysis: A modest critique. In: Covello, V. T. and Johnson, B. B. (Eds.): The social and cultural construction of risk, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Johnson, B. B., Covello, V. T. (Eds.) 1987. The social and cultural construction of risk. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  76. Johnson, E. J., Tversky, A. 1984. Representations and perceptions of risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology (General), 113, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Jungermann, H., Schuetz, H., Thuering, M. 1988. Mental models in risk assessment: Informing people about drugs. Risk Analysis, 8, 147–155.Google Scholar
  78. Jungermann, H., Kasperson, R. M., Wiedemann, P. M. (Eds.) 1988. Themes and tasks of risk communication (Proceedings of an International Workshop at the KFA Jülich). Jülich: KFAReport.Google Scholar
  79. Jungermann, H., Rohrmann, B., Wiedemann, P. 1991. Risikokontroversen - Konzepte, Konflikte, Kommunikation. Berlin etc.: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Jungermann, H., Slovic, P. 1993. Characteristics of individual risk perception. In: BayerischeRueck (Ed.): Risk–a construct. München: Knesebeck, 85–102.Google Scholar
  81. Kahnemann, D., Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X. 1983. Determining the acceptability of risk: ethical and policy issues. In: Rogers, J. T. and Bates, D. V. (Eds.): Assessment and perception of risk to human health, Conference Proceedings, Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, pp. 135–155.Google Scholar
  83. Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X. 1987. Nuclear risk analysis in comparative perspective. Allen and Unwin, Winchester.Google Scholar
  84. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S. Eemel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., Ratick, S. 1988. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kasperson, R. E., Stallen, P. M. (Eds.) 1990. Communicating risks to the public. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  86. Kemp, R. 1993. Risk perception: the assessment of risks by experts and by lay people–a rational comparison? In: Bayerische-Rueck (Ed.): Risk–a construct, München: Knesebeck, 103–118.Google Scholar
  87. Keown, C. F. 1989. Risk perception of Hong Kongese versus Americans. Risk Analysis, 9, 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Klages, H. 1984. Wertorientierungen im Wandel. Rückblick, Gegenwartsanalyse, Prognose. Campus, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  89. Kleinhesselink, R. R., Rosa, E. A. 1991. Cognitive Representation of Risk Perceptions–A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 22, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Kolluru, R. V. 1995. Risk assessment and management: a unified approach. In: Kolluru, R., Bartell, S., Pitblado, R. and Stricoff, S. (Eds.): Risk assessment and management handbook for environmental, health, and safety professionals, Mc-Graw-Hill: New York, pp. 1. 3–1. 41.Google Scholar
  91. Kolluru, R. V., Brooks, D. G. 1995. Integrated risk assessment and strategic management. In: Kolluru, R., Bartell, S., Pitblado, R. and Stricoff, S. (Eds.): Risk assessment and management handbook for environmental, health, and safety professionals, Mc-Graw-Hill: New York, pp. 2. 1–2. 23.Google Scholar
  92. Leiss, W. (Ed.) 1990. Prospects and problems in risk communication. Waterloo: University of Waterloo Press.Google Scholar
  93. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Combs, B. 1978. Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.Google Scholar
  94. Lipset, S. M., Schneider, W. 1983. The confidence gap, business, labor, and government in the public mind. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  95. Lopes, L. L. 1983. Some thoughts on the psychological concept of risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 137–144.Google Scholar
  96. Lopes, L. L. 1992. Risk perception and the perceived public. In: Bromley, D. W., Segerson, K. (Eds.): The social response to environmental risk, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Luce, R. D., Weber, E. U. 1986. An axiomatic theory of conjoint, expected risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 188–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Luhmann, N. 1973. Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Second Edition, Enke, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  99. Luhmann, N. 1980. Trust and power. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  100. Luhmann, N. 1986. Ökologische Kommunikation. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.Google Scholar
  101. Luhmann, N. 1990. Technology, environment, and social risk: a systems perspective. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4, 223–231.Google Scholar
  102. Luhmann, N. 1993. Die Moral des Risikos und das Risiko der Moral. In: Bechmann, G. (Hg.): Technik und Gesellschaft, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  103. Macgregor, D. 1991. Worry over technological activities and life concerns. Risk Analysis, 11, 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Machlis, G., Rosa, E. A. 1990. Desired risk: Broadening the social amplification of risk framework. Risk Analysis, 10, 161–168.Google Scholar
  105. Markowitz, J. 1991. Kommunikation über Risiken: Eine Problemskizze. Manuscript, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  106. Marris, C., Langford, I., O’Riordan, T. 1996. Integrating sociological and psychological approaches to public perceptions on environmental risks: Detailed results from a questionnaire survey. Norwich: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  107. McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S. 1991. A framework for structuring cross-cultural research in risk and decision making. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 22, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Mechitov, A. I., Reblik, S. B. 1990. Studies of risk and safety perception in the USSR. In: Borcherding, K., Larichev, O. J., Mesick, D. M. (Eds.): Contemporary issues in decision making, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 261–270.Google Scholar
  109. Morgan, M. G. 1990. Choosing and managing technology-induced risks. In: Glickman, T. S.,Gough, M. (Eds.), Readings in risk, Resources for the Future, Washington D.C., pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
  110. Mullet, E., Duquesnoy, C., Raiff, P., Fahrasmane, R., Namur, E. 1993. The evaluative factor of risk perception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1594–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. National Research Council, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health 1983. Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  112. Nelkin, D. 1982. Blunders in the business of risk. Nature, 298, 775–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Nyland, L. G. 1993. Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. Stockholm School of Economics: Centre for Risk Research.Google Scholar
  114. O’Riordan, T. 1983. The cognitive and political dimensions of risk analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Otway, H., Thomas, K. 1982. Reflections on risk perception and policy. Risk Analysis, 2, 6982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Parsons, T. E. 1960. Pattern variables revisited. American Sociological Review, 25, 467–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Perusse, M. 1980. Dimensions of perception and recognition of danger. Birmingham: Diss., Univ. of Aston. (cited from Slovic, P. 1991 )Google Scholar
  118. Peters, E., Slovic, P. 1996. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1427 1453.Google Scholar
  119. Peters, H. P. 1991: Warner oder Angstmacher? Thema Risikokommunikation. In: K. Mertens; S. J. Schmidt, S. Weischenberg (Hg.) Funkkolleg ‘Medien und Kommunikation’ Konstruktionen von Wirklichkeit. Studienbrief 9. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz, 74–108.Google Scholar
  120. Peters, H. P. 1999: Das Bedürfnis nach Kontrolle der Gentechnik und das Vertrauen in wissenschaftliche Experten. In: J. Hampel, O. Renn (Hg.): Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit. Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Technologie. Frankfurt/Main: Campus, 225–245.Google Scholar
  121. Petty, R. E, Cacioppo, E. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B., Gibson, R. 1992. Risk perception. In: The Royal Society: Risk Analysis, perception and management, London, 89–134.Google Scholar
  123. Plough, A., Krimsky, S. 1987. The emergence of risk communication studies in science and political context. Science, Technology and Human Values, 12, 4–10.Google Scholar
  124. Pollatsek, A., Tversky, A. 1970. A theory of risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7, 540553.Google Scholar
  125. Puy, A., Aragones, J. I. 1994. Risk perception and the management of emergencies (Paper presented at the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology). Madrid: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Madrid.Google Scholar
  126. Rayner, S. 1987. Risk and relativism in science for policy. In: Covello, V. T., Johnson, B. B. (Eds.), The social and cultural construction of risk, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Rayner, S. 1992. Cultural theory and risk analysis. In: Krimsky, S., Golding, D. (Eds.): Social theories of risk, Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  128. Rayner, S., Cantor, R. 1987. How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Analysis, 7 (1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Renn, O. 1983. Technology, risk and public perception. Angewandte Systemanalyse, 4, 50–65.Google Scholar
  130. Renn, O. 1986. Risk perception: a systematic review of concepts and research results. In: Miller,C. T., Kleindorfer, R. P., Munn, R. E. (Eds.): Conceptual trends and implications for risk research, Laxenburg: International Inst. for Applied System Analysis, 257–286.Google Scholar
  131. Renn, O. 1990a. Risk perception and risk management. Part 1: The intuitive mechanism of risk perceptions. Risk Abstracts 7, 1–9.Google Scholar
  132. Renn, O. 1990b. Risk perception and risk management. Part 2: From risk perception to risk management. Risk Abstracts, 8, 1–10.Google Scholar
  133. Renn, O. 1991. Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In: Kasperson, R. E.,Stallen, R. J. (Eds.): Communicating risk to the public, Dodrecht: Kluwer, pp. 287–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Renn, O. 1992a. Concepts of risk: a classification. In: Krimsky, S., Golding, D. (Eds.), Social theories of risk, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 53–79.Google Scholar
  135. Renn, O. 1992b. The social arena concept of risk debates. In: Krimsky, S., Golding, D. (Eds.), Social theories of risk, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 170–197.Google Scholar
  136. Renn, O. 1992c. Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 465–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Renn, O. 1993. Technik und gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz: Herausforderungen der Technikfolgenabschaetzung. GAIA, 2, 67–83.Google Scholar
  138. Renn, O. 1995. Style of using scientific expertise: a comparative framework. Science and Public Policy, 22, 147–156.Google Scholar
  139. Renn, O., Swaton, E. 1984. Psychological and sociological approaches to study risk perception. Environment International, 10, 557–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Renn, O., Levine, D. 1991. Trust and credibility in risk communication. In: Kasperson, R., Stallen, P. J. (Eds.): Communicating risk to the public, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Renn, O. Burns, W. Kasperson, R. E. Kasperson, J.X, Slovic, P. 1992. The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical application. Social Issues, 48, No. 4, Special Issue: Public Responses to Environmental Hazards, 137–160.Google Scholar
  142. Rohrmann, B. 1991. Akteure der Risiko-Kommunikation. In: Jungermann, H., Rohrmann, B., Wiedemann, P. M. (Hg.): Risikokontroversen–Konzepte, Konflikte, Kommunikation, Berlin etc.: Springer, 355–371.Google Scholar
  143. Rohrmann, B. 1991. Psychologische Risikoforschung. In: Frey, D. (Hg.): Bericht über den 37. Kongress der DGfPs, Göttingen: Hogrefe, 393–412.Google Scholar
  144. Rohrmann, B. 1991. Risks and benefits of individual activities and living conditions - a cross-cultural comparison (Research Report). Hamilton/NZ: University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  145. Rohrmann, B. 1992. The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness. Acta Psychologica, 81, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Rohrmann, B. 1993. Risk management by setting standards. In: Bayerische-Rueck (Ed.): Risk as a construct, München: Knesebeck, 293–313.Google Scholar
  147. Rohrmann, B. 1994. Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 150–163.Google Scholar
  148. Rohrmann, B. 1995. Technological risks: Perception, evaluation, communication. In: Mechlers, R. E., Stewart, M. G. (Eds.): Integrated risk assessment: Current practice and new directions, Rotterdam: Balkema, 7–12.Google Scholar
  149. Rohrmann, B. 1998. The risk notion - epistemological and empirical considerations. In Melchers, R. (Ed.): Integrative risk assessment II. Rotterdam: Balkema.Google Scholar
  150. Rohrmann, B. 1999. Risk perception research: Review and documentation. Update, Studies in Risk Communication vol. 69. Available on the WWW; URL = http://www.kfa-juelich.de/mut/hefte/heft_69.pdf. Juelich: Research Center Juelich.
  151. Rohrmann, B., Chen, H. 1999. Risk perception in Australia and China: an exploratory cultural study. Journal of Risk Research 2 (3), 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Rosa, E. A. 1996. Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Paper presented at the SRAEurope Meeting, Manuscript, University of Surrey, Guildford, June 3–5, 1996 [Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.]Google Scholar
  153. Ross, L.D. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 10, Random House, New York, pp. 173–220.Google Scholar
  154. Schuez, M. (Hg.) 1990. Risiko and Wagnis. Die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
  155. Schuetz, H. in prep. Die Struktur von Risikowahrnehmung - Anwendung von Strukturgleichungsmodellen. Jülich: KFA/MUT.Google Scholar
  156. Schwarz, M., Thompson, M. 1990. Divided we stand: redefining politics, technology, and social choice. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  157. Short, J. F. 1984. The social fabric of risk: toward the social transformation of risk analysisAmerican Sociological Review, 9, 711–725.Google Scholar
  158. Short, J. F. 1989. On defining, describing, and explaining elephants (and reactions to them): hazards, disasters, and risk analysis. Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 7, 397–418.Google Scholar
  159. Sjöberg, L. (Ed.) 1987. Risk and society. London: Allen, Unwin.Google Scholar
  160. Sjöberg, L. 1995. How cognitive is risk perception? A discussion of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches. Paper presented to the 4th European Congress of Psychology, Athens, 2–7 July, 1995. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  161. Sjöberg, L. 1996. A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Sjöberg, L. 1997. Explaining risk perception: An empirical evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 2, 113–130.Google Scholar
  163. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Slovic, P. 1991. Beyond numbers: A broader perspective on risk perception and risk communication. In: Mayo, D., Hollander, R. D. (Eds.): Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management, New York: Oxford University Press, 48–65.Google Scholar
  165. Slovic, P. 1992. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Golding, D., Krimsky, S. (Eds.): Theories of risk, London: Praeger, 117–152.Google Scholar
  166. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. 1980. Facts and fears–understanding risk. In: Schwing, R. C., Albers, W. A. (Eds.): Societal risk assessment, New York: Plenum, 181–218.Google Scholar
  167. Slovic, P. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. 1981. Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications. In: Royal Society (Ed.): Proceedings of the Royal Society, Report A376, Royal Society, London, pp. 17–34.Google Scholar
  168. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. 1982. Why study risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates, R. W., Hohenemser, C., Kasperson, J. X. (Eds.): Perilous progress: managing the hazards of technology, Boulder: Westview, 91–125.Google Scholar
  170. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. 1986. The psychometric study of risk perceptions. In: Covello, V. T., Menkes, J., Mumpower, J. (Eds.): Risk evaluation and management, New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  171. Sokolowska, J., Tyszka, T. 1995. Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks: Why are poor countries less concerned? Risk Analysis, 15, 733–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Starr, C. 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165, 1232–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Starr, C., Whipple, C. 1991. The strategic defense initiative and nuclear proliferation from a risk analysis perspective. In: Shubik, M. (Ed.): Risk, organizations, and society, Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Stern, P. C., Fineberg, V. 1996. Understanding risk: informed decisions in a democratic society. National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization (Ed.), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  175. Swaton, E., Renn, O. 1984. Attitudes towards nuclear power: a comparison between three nations. Laxenburg: Institute for Applied System Analysis.Google Scholar
  176. Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., Slovic, P. 1988. Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Thomas, K., Maurer, D. Fishbein, M., Orway, H.J., Hinkle, R., Simpson, D. A. 1980. Comparative study of public beliefs about five energy systems. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Report 80–15, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  178. Thompson, M. 1980. An outline of the cultural theory of risk, Working Paper of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, WP-80–177, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  179. Thompson, M., Ellis, W., Wildaysky, A. 1990. Cultural theory. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  180. Tiemann, A. R., Tiemann, J. J. 1985. Cognitive maps of risk and benefit perceptions. In: Whipple, C., Covello, V. T. (Eds.): Risk analysis in the private sector, New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  181. Tyszka, T., Goszcynska, M. 1993. What verbal reports say about risk perception. Acta Psychologica, 83, 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Vlek, C. A. J. 1996. A multi-level, multi-stage and multi-attribute perspective on risk assessment, decision-making, and risk control. Risk, Decision, and Policy, 1, 9–31.Google Scholar
  183. Vlek, C., Stallen, P. J. 1980. Rational and personal aspects of risk. Acta Psychologica, 45, 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Vlek, C. A. J., Stallen, P. J. 1981. Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 235–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Vlek, C., Cvetkovich, G. (Eds.) 1989. Social decision methodology for technological projects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  186. Vlek, C., Keren, G. 1992. Behavioral decision and environmental risk management: Assessment and resolution of four `survival’ dilemmas. Acta Psychologica, 80, 249–279.Google Scholar
  187. Waterstone, M. (Ed.) 1991. Risk and society: The interation of science, technology and public policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  188. Wiedemann, P. M. 1993. Tabu, Sünde, Risiko: Veränderungen der gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung von Gefährdungen. In: Bayerische Rückversicherung (Hg.): Risiko ist ein Konstrukt. Wahrnehmungen zur Risikowahrnehmung, München: Knesebeck, pp. 43–67.Google Scholar
  189. Wiedemann, P. M., Femers, S., Hennen, L. 1991. Bürgerbeteiligung bei entsorgungswirtschaftlichen Vorhaben. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
  190. Wiedemann, P. M., Kresser, R. M. 1997. Intuitive Risikobewertung - Strategien der Bewertung von Umweltrisiken. Jülich: Forschungszentrum (MUT-Texte 62 ).Google Scholar
  191. Wildaysky, A. 1988. Searching for safety. New Jersey: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  192. Wildaysky, A. 1993. The comparative study of risk perception: a beginning. In: Bayerische Rueck: Risk–a construct, München: Knesebeck, 179–196.Google Scholar
  193. Wildaysky, A., Dake, K. 1990. Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119, 41–60.Google Scholar
  194. Winterfeldt, D. v., Edwards, W. 1984. Patterns of conflicts about risky technologies. Risk Analysis, 4, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Yates, J. F., Stone, E. 1992. The risk construct. In: Yates, J. F. (Ed.): Risk-taking behavior, Chichester: Wiley, 1–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Rohrmann
    • 1
  • Ortwin Renn
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Center of Technology AssessmentStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations