Worry and Risk Perception

Sjöberg, Lennart

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00918.x

Cited by 363 publications

(255 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

218

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Loewenstein et al 17 cited my previously published data on risk and worry 26 in support of their thesis that risk perception is a "feeling". The correlation between risk and worry in my study were of the order 0.3, and my conclusion was that risk and worry were largely independent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Risk perception, emotion and policy: the case of nuclear technology

Sjöberg¹

2003

European Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the general question of the role of emotions in risk management, with an application to the siting of a repository for spent nuclear fuel. Although it is true that such siting has been very difficult to carry out without meeting with strong local opposition, there are some exceptions in recent Swedish experience. This recent experience constitutes an occasion for reconsidering the received message from risk perception research since the 1970's. This research has purportedly demonstrated a very strong impact of emotional processes on risk attitudes, which in turn is supposed to imply that these attitudes are rigid and unchangeable. However, when this assertion is looked at more closely it is found that a number of questionable assumptions and overly strong generalizations have been made. The central role played by the concept of "dread" is particularly important. Dread, or a "gut reaction", is by no means demonstrated in the traditional selection of hazard attributes, which contain such dimensions as concern for future generations or voluntariness. Such dimensions may have a relationship to emotional processes but they are not emotional per se and their emotional significance remains to be documented. The items that do measure emotional reactions directly, by asking about fear and anxiety, are found in data on nuclear waste repository siting, to have only weak influence on policy attitudes. The most important weight is instead carried by items measuring expected severity of consequences. The argument is, in a concluding section, carried to the level of attitudes to technologies, which may or may not be related to perceived risk. It is found that an important role is played by substitutability of a technology. If people see no good substitute for a technology which has important benefits, they are ready to accept the risks. The current situation in Sweden with regard to nuclear power can be understood in this light, since no realistic alternatives are available.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Risk perception, emotion and policy: the case of nuclear technology

Sjöberg¹

2003

European Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, the two Gallup questions, one for personal risk and the other for societal risk, are not comparable, since the personal risk question was phrased in terms of worry, not likelihood as the societal risk question. Perceived risk and worry have been found to be rather weakly related (Sjöberg, 1998).…”

Section: Sjöbergmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Huddy et al found personal risk to have consequences mostly for personal risk management, not policy attitude (Huddy et al, 2002). Relatively little work has been done on worry (Baron et al, 2000;Drottz-Sjöberg and Sjöberg, 1990;Sjöberg, 1998), but it seems to be a quite a popular dimension among pollsters and opinion researchers, as exemplified by question G1 above. Some research results suggest that risk and worry make independent contributions to policy attitude (Myers et al, 1997).…”

Section: Anxiety Level Low Highmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Asking questions about risk and worry: dilemmas of the pollsters

Sjöberg

2004

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perceived risk of terrorism has been found to have properties similar to those of other risk perceptions. Risk perception research is therefore relevant to a discussion of methods used by polling firms to gauge public opinion with regard to terrorism. Questions used by one firm for this purpose are analyzed in relation to research findings. It is concluded that alternative formulations may be preferable and that more methodological research on risk perception and related attitudes should be conducted. Polling firms working on worry and concerns of the public would profit from taking risk perception research into account.

show abstract

“…Risk perception is often considered to involve intellectual judgments; worry on the other hand involves emotional responses [3]. Risk perception is in general affected by different factors, for example is the risk perceived to be high when it is involuntary, uncontrollable, unfamiliar, dread and pose a high risk to future generations [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public perception of risks associated with contaminated glassworks sites in south-eastern Sweden

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glass has been produced for centuries in Kalmar and Kronoberg Counties in south-eastern Sweden. This industry has lead to severe soil contaminations, particularly due to the historical use of lead, cadmium and arsenic. People may be exposed to heavy metals for example via direct soil contact or consumption of locally produced food. The residents' risk perception was investigated in this study. Do the public perceive a high risk for their own health, for future generations or for the environment, and are they worried? Is there a difference if you live close to the glass factory? Is there a desire for more information about possible risks? With the aim to answer these questions, a questionnaire was sent to 599 individuals in Kalmar and Kronoberg counties. In order to reach people living close to glassworks, half of the questionnaires were sent to randomly selected individuals in four small communities with glassworks and the other half to randomly selected individuals in the two counties. Two groups were compared, one with respondents living 1 km or closer and one living 1 km or more away from a glassworks. The results showed that the respondents were more concerned about risks for the environment than their health. People living close to the glassworks were more worried and perceived a higher risk for the environment, the health and for future generations compared to people living more than 1 km away from glassworks. There was no difference in trust in authorities or consultancies that work with risk assessments, but people that lived close to the glassworks were somewhat keener on having more information about possible risks. About half of the respondents in this group wanted more information about risks, which indicate that there may be a need for an improved risk communication and exchange of information between authorities, researchers and the public.

show abstract

Worry and Risk Perception

Cited by 363 publications

References 28 publications

Risk perception, emotion and policy: the case of nuclear technology

Risk perception, emotion and policy: the case of nuclear technology

Editorial: Asking questions about risk and worry: dilemmas of the pollsters

Public perception of risks associated with contaminated glassworks sites in south-eastern Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About