Factors in risk perception.

By Lennart Sjöberg. Risk Analysis, 2000

930 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/067d75588d16259ba571187c1a2c3a1372d18b74

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The COVID-19 risk perception: A survey on socioeconomics and media attention (2020, background): “The study finding is consistent with the previous studies of Guidry et al. (2017); Wahlberg & Sjoberg (2000).”
A cross‐cultural comparison of road traffic risk perceptions, attitudes towards traffic safety and driver behaviour (2011, background): “Sjöberg (2000) argued that when people experience more risk within a delimited domain of life, they may generalise such risk to be true for other hazard domains as well (see also Flynn, Slovic, and Mertz 1994).”
Public perception of climate risk and adaptation in the UK: A review of the literature (2014, background): “However, the cultural theory approach described above has been criticised for failing to capture attitudes towards different types of risk (Sjoberg, 2000).”
A Meta-Analysis of the Willingness to Pay for Reductions in Pesticide Risk Exposure (2004, neutral): “6 species, avian species, mammals, and arthropods.”
Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong (2014, background): “Studies have also found that perceptions of nuclear risks can be affected by demographics and experience (Corner et al., 2011; Hadjilambrinos, 2000; Sjöberg, 2000).”
How does our perception of risk influence decision-making? Implications for the design of risk information (2007, background): “Several studies have demonstrated that as the number of people implied in the risk statement increases, the level of perceived risk increases (see Sjöberg 2000, cf. Sjöberg 1994).”
Existential risks: analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards (2002, neutral): “The psychology of risk perception is an active but rather messy field [80] that could potentially contribute indirect grounds for reassessing our estimates of existential risks.”
Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change (2003, background): “Some representative studies include Smith and Desvousges (1987, 1988), Smith and Johnson (1988), Viscusi (1985a, 1985b), Viscusi and Magat (1987, 1992), Viscusi et al. (1986), and Viscusi and O'Connor (1984). .”
Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior (2011, background): “Moreover, there may be other qualitative differences between hazards that influence how (near) mishaps are perceived; for example, whether one is exposed voluntarily(38) or whether a hazard is perceived as natural or manmade(39)—which are both relevant dimensions in the context of flood risk managem”
Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate (2011, neutral): “However, literature shows that risk perception is much influenced by a number of individual and personality factors, such as attitudes, perceived control through response-efficacy and self-efficacy, individual risk behavior, optimism bias, stereotyping, etc. (Mueller et al., 1999; Sjöberg, 2000).”
Measuring cultural values and beliefs about environment to identify their role in climate change responses (2014, methodology): “This measurement demonstratesbetter psychometric properties than the four scalesoffered by Dake (1992), which despite their popularity have been criticized as having questionable reliability and factor structure, and low predictive power (Rippl, 2002; Sjoberg, 2000; Slimak&Dietz, 2006).”
Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes (2011, background): “Other research has suggested that environmental concern and values relating to ‘interfering with nature’ and ‘morality’ may be of particular importance in determining attitudes to nuclear power (Sjoberg, 2000, 2004).”
Determinants and Measurement of Climate Change Risk Perception, Worry, and Concern (2017, background): “Subscriber: Cambridge University Library; date: 03 April 2017 The perception of risk is a mental construct (Sjöberg, 2000A) and human perception is rather unique in the sense that it allows for a differentiation between the existence of objective real-world threats, such as climate change, and the…”
Race and ethnicity, gender, and age on perceived threats and fear of COVID-19: Evidence from two national data sources (2020, neutral): “Studies find perceived risk (subjective), rather than actual risk (objective), often determine how populations respond to preventative practices during infectious disease outbreaks (Sjoberg, 2000; Smith, 2006; Weinstein, 1988).”
Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors (2009, background): “Most risk perception research has focused on explaining risk perception by prior experience, knowledge, and socioeconomic as well as demographic characteristics [e.g., Sjöberg, 2000].”
Hunter Perceptions of Similarity and Trust in Wildlife Agencies and Personal Risk Associated with Chronic Wasting Disease (2008, background): “Hazards have no obvious benefits (Slovic 1987; Sjöberg 2000a).”
Risk perception of climate change: Empirical evidence for Germany (2017, background): “Several studies indicate that the direct experience of a natural event or of damages caused by these and the herewith accompanied increase in risk perception, leads to stronger intentions to take adaptive measures (O’Connor et al., 1999; Peacock et al., 2005; Siegrist, Gutscher, 2006; Sjöberg, 2000;”
Chronic Wasting Disease in Wisconsin: Hunter Behavior, Perceived Risk, and Agency Trust (2004, background): “The risk analysis literature (e.g., Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, & Combs, 1978; Sjöberg, 2000), for example, suggests that perceived risk varies depending on whether the hazard is new (unknown risk) or old (known risk).”