Abstract
Subjective judgments, whether by experts or lay people, are a major component in any risk assessment. If such judgments are faulty, efforts at public and environmental protection are likely to be misdirected. The present paper begins with an analysis of biases exhibited by lay people and experts when they make judgments about risk. Next, the similarities and differences between lay and expert evaluations are examined in the context of a specific set of activities and technologies. Finally, some special issues are discussed, including the difficulty of reconciling divergent opinions about risk, the possible irrelevance of voluntariness as a determinant of acceptable risk, the importance of catastrophic potential in determing perceptions and triggering social conflict, and the need to facilitate public participation in the management of hazards.
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
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185:1124–1131, 1974.
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 4: 207–232, 1973.
S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman and B. Combs, “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4: 551–578, 1978.
B. Combs and P. Slovic, “Causes of Death: Biased Newspaper Coverage and Biased Judgments,” Journalism Quarterly, in press.
B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, “Fault Trees: Sensitivity of Estimated Failure Probabilities to Problem Representation,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4: 342–355, 1978.
B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, “Knowing With Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3: 552–564, 1977.
S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff and L. D. Phillips, “Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art,” Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs, H. Jungermann and G. de Zeeuw, eds., D. Reidel, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 1977.
M. Hynes and E. VanMarcke, “Reliability of Embankment Performance Prediction,” Proceedings of the ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1976.
B. Fischhoff, “Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” Policy Sciences, 8:177–202, 1977.
R. W. Kates, “Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management,” Research Paper 78, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1962.
K. Borch, The Economics of Uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1968.
Eugene Register-Guard, “Doubts Linger on Cyclamate Risks,” January 14, 1976.
E. E. David, “One-Armed Scientists?” Science, 189: 891, 1975.
O. Svenson, “Are We All Among the Better Drivers?” Unpublished report, Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm, 1979.
A. Rethans, “An Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Product Hazards,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1979.
N. D. Weinstein, “It Won’t Happen to Me: Cognitive and Motivational Sources of Unrealistic Optimism,” Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, 1979.
P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff and S. Lichtenstein, “Accident Probabilities and Seat Belt Usage: A Psychological Perspective,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10: 281–285, 1978.
L. Ross, “The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings,” Advances in Social Psychology, L. Berkowitz, ed., Academic Press, New York, 1977.
D. Nelkin, “The Role of Experts on a Nuclear Siting Controversy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 30: 29–36, 1974.
B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read and B. Combs, “How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits,” Policy Sciences, 8:127–152, 1978.
P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff and S. Lichtenstein, “Expressed Preferences,” Decision Research Report 80-1, Eugene, Oregon, 1980.
P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein and B. Fischhoff, “Images of Disaster: Perception and Acceptance of Risks from Nuclear Power,” Energy Risk Management, G. Goodman and W. D. Rowe, eds., Academic Press, London, in press.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH 1400 (NUREG-75/014), Washington, D.C., October 1975.
W. Lowrance, Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety, William Kaufmann Co., Los Altos, California, 1976.
C. Starr, “Social Benefit vs. Technological Risk,” Science, 165:1232–1238, 1969.
Council for Science and Society, The Acceptability of Risks, London, 1977.
G. H. Kinchin, “Assessment of Hazards in Engineering Work,” Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part I 64: 431–438, 1978.
W. D. Rowe, The Anatomy of Risk, John Wiley, New York, 1977.
L. Lave, “Risk, Safety, and the Role of Government,” Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making, The National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 96-108, 1972.
R. Wilson, “The Costs of Safety,” New Scientist, 68: 274–275, 1975.
J. Ferreira and L. Slesin, Observations on the Social Impact of Large Accidents, Technical Report No. 122, Operations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 1976.
B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, “Knowing What You Want: Measuring Labile Values,” Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior, T. Wallsten, ed., Hillsdale, N. J., Erlbaum, in press.
R. L. Keeney, “Evaluation Involving Potential Fatalities,” Unpublished report, Woodward Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California 1977.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1980 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In: Schwing, R.C., Albers, W.A. (eds) Societal Risk Assessment. General Motors Research Laboratories. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0445-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0445-4_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-0447-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-0445-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive