Advertisement

Social and Behavioral Research on Risk: Uses in Risk Management Decisionmaking

  • Vincent T. Covello
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 4)

Abstract

In response to rising concern about health and environmental risks, a concerted effort is being made to improve risk analysis methods and risk management approaches. As part of this effort, social and behavioral scientists have produced a substantial body of knowledge on public risk perceptions, attitudes, and behavior (see Covello. 1983). The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe five critical policy uses for such information (see Table 1). A basic assumption of that paper is that policy analysts and decisionmakers can benefit from a better understanding of how the public thinks and makes decisions about technological risks. Without such understanding, well-intended policies my be ineffective or even counterproductive.

Keywords

Risk Management Environmental Impact Assessment Seat Belt Toxic Shock Syndrome Flood Insurance 
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. Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (1980) “An Approach to Quantitative Goals for Nuclear Power Plants,” NUREG-0739, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. (1982) “Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics,” Economic Inquiry, 20, 2–9.Google Scholar
  3. Cavello, V. (1983) “the Perception of Technological Risks: A Literature Review,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards, W. (1983) “An Application of Multiattribute Utility Analysis to an Energy Dispute,” Paper presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Technology Assessment, Risk Analysis, and Environmental Impact Assessment, Les Arcs, France, Aug. 21–31, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. Fischhoff, B., Watson, S., and Hope, C. (1984) “Defining Risk,” Technical Report, Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon.Google Scholar
  6. Hohenemser, C., Kates, R., and Slovie P. (April 22, 1983), “The Nature of Technological Hazard,” Science, 220, 378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. eds., (1982) “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Kunreuther, H., Ginsberg, R., Miller, L., Sagi, P., Slovic, P., Borkan, B., and Katz, N. (1978) “Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons,” Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Litai, D., Lanning, D., and Rasmussen, N. (1983) “The Public Perception of Risk,” in Covello, V., Flamm, W., Rodericks, J., and Tardiff, R., eds., “The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks,” Plenum Press, New York, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mazur, A. (1981) “The Dynamics of Technological Controversy,” Communications Press: Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Morris, L., Mazis, M., and Barofsky, I., eds. (1980) “Product Labeling and Health Risks,” Banbury Report 6, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.Google Scholar
  12. Nelkin, D. (eds) (1979) “Controversy: The Politics of Technical Decisions,” Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Office of Technology Assessment (1984) “Nuclear Power in An Age of Uncertainty,” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  14. Otway, H. J. and von Winterfeldt, D. (1982) “Beyond Acceptable Risk: On the Social Acceptability of Technologies,” Policy Sciences, 14, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Renn, O. (June 1981) “Man, Technology, and Risk: A Study of Intuitive Risk Assessment and Attitudes towards Nuclear Power,” Report Jul-Spez, Julich, Federal Republic of Germany, Nuclear Research Center.Google Scholar
  16. Robertson, L. S. (1976) “The Great Seat Belt Campaign flop,” Journal of Communication, 26, 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwalm, N. D., and Slovic, P. (January 1982) “Development and Test of a Motivational Approach and Materials for Increasing Use of Motor-Vehicle Occupant Restraints,” Perceptronics Technical Report PD-FTR-1100-82-1, Eugene, Oregon.Google Scholar
  18. Slovic, P., Fischhoff B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1980) “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk” R. Schwing and W. Albers, Jr., eds., “Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough?”, Plenum Press, New York, 181–216.Google Scholar
  19. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Corrigan, B., and Combs, B. (1977) “Preference for Insuring Against Probable Small Losses: Implications for the Theory and Practice of Insurance,” Journal of Risk and Insurance, 44, 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein. S. (1978) “Accident Probabilities and Seat Belt Usage: A Psychological Perspective.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (Sept. 27, 1974) “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981) “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, 211, 1453–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vlek, C., and Stallen, P. J. (1980) “Rational and Personal Aspects of Risk,” Acta Psychologica, 45, 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vlek, C., and Stallen, P. J. (Oct 1981) “Judging Risks and Benefits in the Small and in the Large,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 38.Google Scholar
  25. von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W., Anson, J., Stillwell, W., and Slovic, P. (May 1980) “Development of a Methodology to Evaluate Risks from Nuclear Electric Power Plants: Phase I—Identifying Social Groups and Structuring Their Values and Concerns,” Final Report to Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M.Google Scholar
  26. von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W. (1982) “Patterns of Conflict about Risky Technologies,” Technical report. Social Sciences Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent T. Covello
    • 1
  1. 1.National Science FoundationUSA

Personalised recommendations