The theoretical features of some current approaches to risk perception

Abstract

Three approaches to risk perception (RP), the psychometric, the Basic Risk Perception Model, and the social ampli cation of risk, are evaluated using four common criteria for scienti c theories. All approaches are found to meet the criterion of describing a large set of data, and for the psychometric approach and the Basic Risk Perception Model, the criterion of parsimony is ful lled. The criteria of falsi ability and generating testable hypotheses are not met by any of these approaches. It is concluded that there is not as much theory available in RP research as could be expected at face value, if theory is de ned as statements about causal mechanisms generating testable hypotheses. These three approaches instead quali es as models (here de ned as mathematical descriptions of data).

An inquiry of the opinions of the French and Belgian populations as regards risk

“…Therefore, within this paper, statistical analyses are not presented, nor the main factors (psychometric approach [8], social amplification of risk [9] or the basic risk perception model [10]) contributing to explanations are identified. Those are described and discussed largely elsewhere in literature [11][12][13][14]. Some authors seek also better explanations of the responses to questionnaires by complementing them with results from other methods such as Focus Groups as used recently in Germany [15].…”

Risk perception and water fluoridation support and opposition in Australia

“…The concepts of risk and risk perception have received a considerable amount of empirical attention in the scientific literature (13). Traditionally, perceptions of many public‐health risks have been regarded as the product of deliberate decisions by individuals who are trying to get the best possible outcome for themselves and important others, such as the immediate family (14‐16).…”

Aggressive driving: A survey of attitudes, opinions and behaviors

“…The disparity regarding the perceived and actual growth of the problem may also be related to locus of control, which is known to influence levels of concern (Wåhlberg, 2001). Believing that the hazards imposed by aggressive driving can be controlled by one's own behavior tends to reduce the level of concern.…”