Perception of Risk

1982

The results of the perception investigations give a clear indication of the way in which people intuitively perceive risk sources. Most people have generally reliable beliefs about the average loss rates from various risks, which howeverunlike scientists and actuaries - they do not regard as a criterion for risk assessment. On the one hand the accompanying circumstances of the hazardous situations and on the other the expected consequences for general social, economic and future-orientated interests are of central significance for them. In addition personal attitudes towards hazardous circumstances and general value beliefs according to the degree of political polarization - which vary from individual to individual - play a role which must not be underestimated.

1989

Environment International, 1984

Technological progress and its impacts on humankind has caused an increasing awareness of risk, and objective, statistical estimations are often inadequate to alleviate the public's fright and fear. Research on risk perception using psychological and sociological approaches is trying to bridge this gap. As a first step, a distinction must be made between the technical definition of risk (probability x consequences) and the social definition, in which additional parameters (source, dimensions, timeframe, exposure) need to be included. The methodology of risk assessment, though objective by design, is limited in the interpretability of its results, if the calculation of consequences does not take public perceptions and social effects into account. The problems and advantages of risk assessment are discussed, and the key question for risk perception research are presented. Various techniques are available to study risk perception and attitudes towards risk; selection of a specific technique is determined by the objective of the research, namely sociological implications or psychological cognitions. Several empirical studies in both areas are presented and the results discussed.

Human behavior in emergency management endeavours is influenced by risk perception, risk attitude, risk communication, and risk management facets. What is the relevance of these socio-psychological processes? Risk perception refers to people's judgments and evaluations of hazards they (or their facilities, or environments) are or might be exposed to. Such perceptions steer decisions about the acceptability of risks and are a core influence on behaviors before, during and after a disaster. People's risk appraisals are a complex result of hazard features and personal philosophies. Risk attitudes are people's intentions to evaluate a risk situation in a favorable or unfavorable way and to act accordingly. The underlying traits are risk propensity and risk aversion, i.e. cautiousness. High risk propensity can induce hazards; on the other hand, risk management activities may require some risk propensity. However, risk attitudes are neither necessarily stable, nor homogeneous across hazard types. Risk communication is a social process by which people become informed about hazards, are influenced towards behavioral change and can participate in decision-making about risk issues in an informed manner. Such activities are part of almost all emergency management efforts. For effective risk communication, a sound understanding of risk perceptions and attitudes is indispensable. Risk management are manifold procedures for reducing risks (either the hazard itself or its consequences) to a level deemed tolerable by society; this includes monitoring, control and public communication. For people exposed to a hazard (residents, employees, commuters, consumers etc), their preparedness is the critical goal, regarding both the occurrence or the impacts of an accident/disaster. This cannot be achieved without skilful risk communication. In sum, successfully preparing populations for dealing with emergency situations requires that technological and administrative features of emergency management are enriched by socio-psychological considerations and measures. Given the reach of hazards and the diversity of exposed populations, cross-cultural and interdisciplinary research is essential.

Risk perception has become a significant topic to policy maker, politician, disaster manager, disaster Practitioner, climate change researcher, concerned with hazard and safety issues and the psychological analysis of the content is much more interesting. The term is most commonly used in reference to natural hazards and threats to the environment or health, such as nuclear power. The purpose of the study is to identify the people perception about risk, how people minimize their risks and way they face any risky situation. The goal of the study is to make aware general people about risk to minimize their risk as they can face any risk easily. Quantitative interview method has been used in this report. Risk as analysis brings logic, reason, and scientific deliberation to bear on risk management. Reliance on risk as feelings is described as “the affect heuristic. We talked with ten person, among them 4 person think road accident is their 1st risk and tree person think traffic jam as their 1st risk. So mainly traffic related risk is highly perceived by people. There is huge differences of perception between various individual. They get risk related information from various sources like TV, FM radio, print media, Online based media. Most them thinks TV is the most credible media of risk information. Some of them have no knowledge about risks perception and some have little knowledge. They mainly don’t take any initiative to minimize their risk without being self-consciousness. However people become aware of risk and improve their perception on risk they can avoid many risk of their everyday life.

Studies of risk perception examine the judgments people make when they are asked to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies. This research aims to aid risk analysis and policy-making by (i) providing a basis for understanding and anticipating public responses to hazards and (ii) improving the communication of risk information among lay people, technical experts, and decision-makers. This work assumes that those who promote and regulate health and safety need to understand how people think about and respond to risk. Without such understanding, well-intended policies may be ineffective.

Acta Psychologica, 1984

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2322816

Communication is often recognized as pivotal for organizations managing high-risk technologies. Such communication is generally informed by industry and government regulations, which are then translated into procedures, guidelines, and the like. These are disseminated, discussed and trained among staff by the executive team members, with the aim to reduce potential dangers. However, it is questionable as to whether all organizational members share the same perception and therefore interpretation, of risk. Interview data evidence suggests that employees, other than the executive team are not preoccupied with regulations, but rather with the question of how to keep themselves and their fellow workers safe. Following from this assumption, mere communication is perceived to be inadequate to create common awareness concerning safety and potential risk. This paper offers the results of empirical research, based on Repertory Grid, conducted with all employees of a natural gas terminal in Europe about their perceptions of the risks faced by their organization. It reveals that indeed those occupying different roles in the organization have very different perceptions of workplace risks. These differences are affected by various factors such as the level of experience and tacit knowledge. However, previous real life threatening experiences seem to be a dominant predictor for a broader and more divergent view on the present risks. These findings might have a major impact on risk communication by transforming the transfer of procedures into quasi-risky situation experiences, which has implications for safety courses and training.