Introduction to Risk Psychology

  • Esperanza López-Vázquez
  • Ma. Luisa Marván
Part of the The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science book series (APESS, volume 23)


Risk perception has been studied from different approaches. From a cognitive angle, risk perception implies the cognitive evaluation that is done in an individual way but, at the same time, is impregnated and pierced by the social aspects that surround the person. Perceived risk is built throughout life and is modified according to various elements, such as the general information that is acquired from danger, as well as experience, personal and social beliefs, and emotions. Risk perception is influenced by different factors such as heuristic biases that are judgements based on experiences, values and outgoing perceptions. The culturalist approach analyses society from the base of social systems where risk appears as a result of technological and economic progress that society itself has generated. Society accepts a large number of dangers, given the great benefits many of them provide. The influence of factors such as the media and social trust are also discussed.


Risks Risk perception Risk behaviours Heuristics 


  1. Assally J.P. (1992). Les jeunes et le risque. Une approche psychologique de l’accident, Paris: Vigot.Google Scholar
  2. Ayres, T.J., Wood, C.T., Schmidt, R.A., McCarthy, R.L. (2002). Risk Perception and Behavioral Choice. International Journal of cognitive ergonomics, 2(1–2), 35–52.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (2012). Risk Society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1998). La sociedad del riesgo. Hacia una nueva modernidad (Risk Society. Towards a new modernity). Barcelona: Paidós.Google Scholar
  5. Bichard, E., & Kazmierczak, A. (2012). Are homeowners willing to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change? Climatic Change, 112(3–4), 633–654.Google Scholar
  6. Bronfman, N., & López-Vázquez, E. (2011). A Cross-Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust-Acceptance Relationship. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1919–1934. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and Culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Le Robert Dictionnaire Historique de la Langue Française (Le Robert Historic Dictionary of the French Language) (1999). Paris: Diccionaires Le Robert.Google Scholar
  8. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eiser, J.R., Miles, S., Frewer, L.J. (2002). Trust, perceived risk and attitudes towards food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(11), 2423–2433.Google Scholar
  10. Espluga, J., Prades, A., Gamero, N., Solá, R. (2009). El papel de la ‘confianza’ en los conflictos socioambientales. (The role of ‘trust’ in socio-environmental conflicts.) Política y sociedad, 46(1), 255–273.Google Scholar
  11. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S., Hope, C. (1984). Defining Risk. Policy Sciences, 17, 123–139.Google Scholar
  12. Fischhoff, B., Lichntenstein, S., Read, S., Combs, B. (2000). How safe is safe enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330–344.Google Scholar
  14. Finucame, M. L., Alkhakami, A., Slovic, P., Jhonson, S. M. (2000). The affect heurística in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.Google Scholar
  15. Fischhoff, B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 4, 330–344.Google Scholar
  16. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and Biases. The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harries, T., & Penning-Rowsell, E. (2011). Victim pressure, institutional inertia and climate change adaptation: The case of flood risk. Global Environmental Change, 21, 188–197.Google Scholar
  18. Clinton, J. (2006). Risk Perception and Terrorism: Applying the Psychometric Paradigm. Homeland Security Affairs, 2, Revisado el 18 de Junio de 2015
  19. Joffe, H. (2003). Risk: From perception to social representation. British Journal of Social Psychoogy, 42, 55–73.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (Eds.), (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
  22. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177–187.Google Scholar
  23. Kennedy, B.H. (1962). The Revised Latin Primer (revised edn.). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Kouabenan, D.R., Cadet, B., Hermand, D., Muñoz Sastre, M.T. (2006). Psychologie du risque. Identifier, évaluer, prévenir. Brussels: De Boeck.Google Scholar
  25. Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) (2014). Climate change 2014. Impacts, Adaptation and vulnerability. Fifth assessment Report of Intergovermental Pannel of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  26. Lerner, J.S., Gonzalez, R.M., Small, D.A., Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.Google Scholar
  27. Lopes, L.L. (1987). Between hope and fear: the psycholoy of risk, Advances in experimental social psychology, 20, 255–295.Google Scholar
  28. López-Vázquez, E., Brunner, T., Siegrist, M. (2012). Perceived risks and benefits of nanotechnology applied to the food and packaging sector in Mexico. British Food Journal, 114(2), 197–205.Google Scholar
  29. López-Vázquez, E. (2009). Risk perception and coping strategies for risk from Popocatépetl Volcano, México. Geofísica Internacional, 48(1), 301–315.Google Scholar
  30. López-Vázquez, E., Marván, M.L., Flores, F., Peyrefitte, A. (2008). Volcanic risk exposure, feelings of insecurity, stress and coping strategies in Mexico. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(12), 2885–2902.Google Scholar
  31. Luhmann, N. (1998). Sociología del Riesgo (Risk Sociology). Mexico: University Iberoamericana, Triena Editorials.Google Scholar
  32. Montenegro, S.M. (2005). La sociología de la sociedad del riesgo de Ulrich Beck y sus críticos (The Sociology of Risk Society of Ulrich Beck and his Critics). PAMPA Revista interuniversitaria de estudios territoriales, 1, 41–58.Google Scholar
  33. Morales, J.F., Paéz, D., Kornblit, A.L., Asún, D. (2002). Psicología Social (Social Psycology). Buenos Aires: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Munier, B. (1992). Psychologie du risque et cognition, Séminaire sur les aspects socio-économiques de la gestion des risques naturels 1–3 octobre 1991, Paris, France in Etudes du CEMAGREF. Montagne, 2, 43–52.Google Scholar
  35. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N.F. (2005). Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), 199–209.Google Scholar
  36. Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  37. Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In R. E. Kasperson (Ed.) Communicating Risks to the Public: Technology, Risk, and Society (pp. 175–218). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  38. Sánchez-Vallejo, F., Rubio, J., Páez D., Blanco, A. (1998). Optimismo Ilusorio y Percepción de Riesgo (Illusory Optimism and Risk Perception). Boletín de Psicología (Psychology Bulletin), 58, 7–17.Google Scholar
  39. Selye, H. (1950). Stress. Montreal: Acta Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Sharot, T., Korn, C.W., Dolan, R.J. (2011). How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1475–1479.Google Scholar
  41. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kiers, H.A. (2005) A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25(1), 211–222.Google Scholar
  42. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G.T, Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–362.Google Scholar
  43. Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk analysis, 20(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  44. Slovic, P. (2000). Perception of risk. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 220–231). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  45. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. (1984). Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety. Acta Psychologica, 56, 183–203.Google Scholar
  46. Slovic, P., Finucame, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D. (2010a). Risk analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The Feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  47. Slovic, P., Peters, E., Grana, J., Berger, S., Dieck, G. S. (2010b). Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a national Survey. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The Feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, W. and Lockwood, J. (1976). Chambers Murray Latin-English Dictionary. Edinburgh and London: Chambers and John Murray.Google Scholar
  49. Starr, C. (1969). Social Benefit versus Technological Risk. Science, 165, 1232–1238.Google Scholar
  50. Terpstra, T. (2011). Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: Affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behaviour. Risk Analysis, 31(10), 1658–1675.Google Scholar
  51. Tversky, E., & Kanneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Sciences, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  52. Viklund M. (2003). Trust and risk perception in western Europe: A cross-national study. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 727–738.Google Scholar
  53. Wachinger, G.O., Renn, C., Begg, C., Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1–17.Google Scholar
  54. Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?. Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.Google Scholar
  55. World Health Organization (2015). Enfermedades crónicas y promoción de la salud: Prevención de las enfermedades crónicas (Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion: Prevention of Chronic Diseases). Accessed 10 Dec 2016.
  56. Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Transdisciplinary Research in PsychologyUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de MorelosCuernavacaMexico
  2. 2.Institute of Psychological Research, Universidad VeracruzanaXalapaMexico

Personalised recommendations