What Risks Do People Perceive in Everyday Life? A Perspective Gained from the Experience Sampling Method (ESM)

The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to collect data from 74 part-time students who described and assessed the risks involved in their current activities when interrupted at random moments by text messages. The major categories of perceived risk were short term in nature and involved "loss of time or materials" related to work and "physical damage" (e.g., from transportation). Using techniques of multilevel analysis, we demonstrate effects of gender, emotional state, and types of risk on assessments of risk. Specifically, females do not differ from males in assessing the potential severity of risks but they see these as more likely to occur. Also, participants assessed risks to be lower when in more positive self-reported emotional states. We further demonstrate the potential of ESM by showing that risk assessments associated with current actions exceed those made retrospectively. We conclude by noting advantages and disadvantages of ESM for collecting data about risk perceptions.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[2]  E. Brunswik,et al.  Distal focussing of perception: Size-constancy in a representative sample of situations. , 1944 .

[3]  R. T. Hurlburt Randomly sampling thinking in the natural environment. , 1997, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[4]  P. Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, European Journal of Operational Research.

[5]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  W. Johnson,et al.  Studies in language behavior: A program of research , 1944 .

[8]  Helmut Jungermann,et al.  Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests , 1995 .

[9]  J. Graham,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Health Protection: Inadequate Sensitivity to Probability? , 1999 .

[10]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. , 1991, Psychological review.

[11]  Robert W. Hahn,et al.  Risks, Costs and Lives Saved: GETTING BETTER RESULTS FROM REGULATION , 1996 .

[12]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[13]  N. Bolger,et al.  Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. , 2003, Annual review of psychology.

[14]  M Bouyer,et al.  Personality Correlates of Risk Perception , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  Christine R. Harris,et al.  Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? , 2006, Judgment and Decision Making.

[16]  Andrew Copas,et al.  Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons , 2000, The Lancet.

[17]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Centre de Referència en Economia Analítica Barcelona Economics Working Paper Series Working Paper n o 39 Is confidence in Decisions Related to Feedback ? Evidence – and lack of evidence-from Random Samples of Real-World Behavior , 2004 .

[18]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm , 1992 .

[19]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  What Risks Are People Concerned About , 1991 .

[20]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. , 1975 .

[21]  M. J. Quadrel,et al.  Risk perception and communication , 2008 .

[22]  William D. Schafer,et al.  Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. , 1999 .

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

[24]  M R Greenberg,et al.  Gender differences in risk perception: effects differ in stressed vs. non-stressed environments. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[25]  L. Sjöberg,et al.  Factors in risk perception. , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  E. Mullet,et al.  Cognitive processes involved in the assessment of health hazards' severity , 2004 .

[27]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Hindsight ≠ foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty* , 2003 .

[28]  S. Epstein Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[29]  Jack B. Soll,et al.  Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[30]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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