Cognitive components in risk perception: Natural versus manmade risks

In a questionnaire study 106 Norwegian students rated natural and manmade hazards according to risk magnitude and public versus private responsibility for risk management. Another group of 50 subjects judged 36 natural hazards on nine risk dimensions used in previous psychometric studies of ‘manmade risks’. When ratings on nine risk characteristics for natural hazards were factor analyzed a three-dimensional solution was found, with one active/passive dimension, one potency dimension, and one novelty dimension. This contrasts with the two-dimensional solution found for manmade hazards. Responsibility for risk management was found to be related to the type of risk in focus, and different risk characteristics seem to play different roles for manmade and natural hazards.

[1]  Branden B. Johnson,et al.  Risk and Culture Research , 1991 .

[2]  C. Starr.  Social benefit versus technological risk. , 1969, Science.

[3]  Kenneth H. Beck,et al.  The effects of risk probability, outcome severity, efficacy of protection and access to protection on decision making: A further test of protection motivation theory , 1984 .

[4]  J. Rotter.  Some Problems and Misconceptions Related to the Construct of Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement , 1975 .

[5]  P Slovic,et al.  Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: a pilot study of risk perception. , 1985, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Charles Vlek,et al.  Rational and personal aspects of risk , 1980 .

[7]  D. Palenzuela.  Refining the theory and measurement of expectancy of internal vs external control of reinforcement , 1988 .

[8]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Behavioral Law and Economics: Reluctance to Vaccinate: Omission Bias and Ambiguity , 1990 .

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

[10]  Laura M. Davidson,et al.  Natural Disaster and Technological Catastrophe , 1983 .

[11]  George Cvetkovich,et al.  Classifying hazardous events , 1985 .

[12]  J. Grimblot,et al.  Study of the sulphurization of WO3/ γ-Al2O3 catalysts by in situ laser raman spectroscopy , 1988 .

[13]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives , 1986 .

[14]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Why Study Risk Perception , 1982 .

[15]  J. Rotter.  Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. , 1966, Psychological monographs.

[16]  Chauncey Starr,et al.  Risk Management, Assessment, and Acceptability , 1985 .

[17]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Modeling the Societal Impact of Fatal Accidents , 1984 .

[18]  K. David Pijawka,et al.  Coping with Extreme Hazard Events: Emerging themes in Natural and Technological Disaster Research , 1988 .

[19]  K. David Pijawka,et al.  Societal Response to Hazards and Major Hazard Events: Comparing Natural and Technological Hazards , 2022, The Social Contours of Risk.

[20]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public , 1988 .

[21]  S. Lyng.  Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking , 1990, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  Tadeusz Tyszka,et al.  Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries , 1991 .