Aviation Risk Perception: A Comparison Between Experts and Novices

This article describes an exploratory investigation of the risk perceptions of experts and novices in relation to helicopter operations, under conditions where the participants are matched on various characteristics previously found to affect perceptions, such as demographic, gender, and background factors. The study reports considerable evidence of perceptual differences between the two participant groups (i.e., expert pilots and candidate pilots). We find that the experts' perceptions of relative risks are more veridical, in terms of their higher correlation with the true relative frequencies. A significant positive correlation between the flight hours and the contextual risk-taking tendency is also shown, leading the experienced pilots' choices toward risky alternatives in scenarios--a potential result of their overconfidence based on superior task performance. Possible explanations are offered for the findings and potential avenues for future research are identified.

[1]  Wright,et al.  Risk Perception in the U.K. Oil and Gas Production Industry: Are Expert Loss‐Prevention Managers' Perceptions Different From Those of Members of the Public? , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[2]  George Wright,et al.  An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Lay Foibles and Expert Fables in Judgments about Risk , 1982 .

[4]  G. Rowe,et al.  Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality? , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  Margôt Kuttschreuter,et al.  The role of expertise in risk communication: laypeople's and expert's perception of the millennium bug risk in The Netherlands , 2002 .

[6]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks , 1992, Toxicologic pathology.

[7]  George Wright,et al.  Assessing the quality of expert judgment: Issues and analysis , 1994, Decis. Support Syst..

[8]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada , 1995 .

[9]  George W Rebok,et al.  Human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots. , 2002, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[10]  James Flynn,et al.  Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository , 1993 .

[11]  Jason C. Kinnell,et al.  Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  T D Koepsell,et al.  Effects of expertise and experience on risk judgments. , 1983, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  R P Barke,et al.  Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. , 1993, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[15]  P. Slovic Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[16]  J. Shanteau The Psychology of Experts An Alternative View , 1992 .

[17]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[18]  P Slovic,et al.  Perception of ecological risk to water environments. , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.