Are Received Risk Perception Models Alive and Well

Two recent papers on risk perception models are discussed. In these papers, quantitative analyses are presented of risk perception in relation to risk characteristics as specified in the Psychometric Model, and to cultural biases according to Cultural Theory. This comment points out that the data quality of these two studies is doubtful, with a very small convenience sample and a very low response rate. More importantly, the analyses show the same low levels of explained variance of risk perception as other researchers have found previously, but the authors still draw optimistic conclusions from their data. Such conclusions are unjustified.

[1]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Perceived risk and tampering with nature , 2000 .

[2]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Risk, moral value of actions, and mood , 1986 .

[3]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Rating the Risks , 1979 .

[4]  K. Pinkau,et al.  Environmental standards : scientific foundations and rational procedures of regulation with emphasis on radiological risk management : a monograph , 1998 .

[5]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power1 , 1996 .

[6]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation , 1999 .

[7]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  A Discussion of the Limitations of the Psychometric and Cultural Theory Approaches to Risk Perception , 1996 .

[8]  I H Langford,et al.  A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm , 1998, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Åsa Boholm,et al.  Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research , 1998 .

[10]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Specifying Factors in Radiation Risk Perception1 , 2000 .

[11]  C Marris,et al.  Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Consequences matter, ‘risk’ is marginal , 2000 .

[13]  Etienne Mullet,et al.  Societal risk as seen by the French public , 1993 .

[14]  T. Heberlein,et al.  Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the published literature. , 1978 .

[15]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository , 2001 .

[16]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  World Views, Political Attitudes and Risk Perception , 1998 .

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

[18]  C. Mays,et al.  Cultural Theory and Risk Perception: Validity and Utility Explored in the French Context , 1996 .

[19]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Factors in Risk Perception , 2000 .

[20]  L. Sjoberg,et al.  RISK PERCEPTION IN WESTERN EUROPE , 1999 .

[21]  D. Dillman.  The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys , 1991 .