Risk Target: An Interactive Context Factor in Risk Perception

Abstract

The effect of specification of the target on risk evaluation was examined. A whole set of hazards, covering most of the domains, were considered: common individual hazards, outdoor activities, medical care, public transportation, energy production, pollutants, sex, deviance, and addictions. Three human targets were introduced: personal health risk (including personal risk of death), health risk for people in the country, and health risk for people in the world. The basic design was a between-subjects design. The first hypothesis was that risk judgments made in the "world" condition should be higher than risk judgments made in the "country" condition, and risk judgments made in this condition should be higher than risk judgments made in the "personal" condition. This is what was observed. The second hypothesis was that the target effect should differ as a function of the kind of hazards considered. This also is what was observed. In two domains--pollutants, and deviance, sex, and addictions--the target effect was important. It corresponded to about one-tenth of the response scale. In the four remaining domains, the target effect was unimportant or absent.

Societal Risk Perception in Present Day Russia

“…Risk judgments showed a 3-dimension structure that was easy to interpret. Some elements of this structure were highly reminiscent of factors previously found in Bouyer et al (2001) and in Hermand et al (2003). Two of these factors were highly similar in content.…”

Societal risk perception among Egyptian adolescents and young adults

“…skyscrapers), and still others classified as common individual hazards (e.g. piercing) in previous studies (Hermand et al, 2003). The huge difference as regards the risk associated with Skyscrapers is evidently attributable to the tragic events in Manhattan that occurred about 12 months before the gathering of the data.…”

Risk Perception and Personality Facets

“…The present study systematically examined the relationship between personality variables and risk perception by conjoining two broad frameworks: (1) a comprehensive risk perception typology proposed by Bouyer et al (2001; see also Hermand et al , 2003), and (2) a comprehensive set of personality items proposed by Goldberg (1999).…”

“…'s risk questionnaire (Slovic et al ., 1985) and partly from the Bouyer et al 's questionnaire. These items covered eight of the domains found in Bouyer et al (2001) and in Hermand et al (2003): energy production, pollutants, sex, deviance, addictions, weapons, common individual hazards, outdoor activities, medical care, and psychotropic drugs. Responses were given on an 11‐point scale labeled from “no risk” to “extremely severe risk.” As in Slovic et al (1985), the marks on the scale ranged from 0 to 100 (0, 10, 20, 30, etc.…”