Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in Risk Perception Between Hazards and Between Individuals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis

Abstract

How people think about a hazard often deviates from experts’ assessment of its probability and severity. The aim of this chapter is to clarify how people perceive risks. We thereby focus on two important research lines: (1) research on the psychometric paradigm, which explains variations between the perceptions of different risks, and (2) research on factors that may determine an individual’s perception of a risk (i.e., perceived benefits, trust, knowledge, affective associations, values, and fairness). Findings from studies about various risks (e.g., genetically modified organisms, food additives, and climate change) are reviewed in order to provide practical implications for risk management and communication. Overall, this chapter shows that the roles of benefit perception, trust, knowledge, affective associations, personal values, and fairness are not always straightforward; different factors appear involved in the perception of different hazards. We recommend practitioners, when they encounter a new hazard, to consult previous studies about similar hazards in order to identify the factors that describe the public’s perception of the new hazard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arvai, J., & Post, K. (2012). Risk management in a developing country context: Improving decisions about point-of-use water treatment among the rural poor in Africa. Risk Analysis, 32, 67–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, A., Fleming, R., & Davidson, L. M. (1983). Natural disaster and technological catastrophe. Environment and Behavior, 15, 333–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearth, A., Cousin, M.-E., & Siegrist, M. (2014a). The consumer’s perception of artificial food additives: Influences on acceptance, risk and benefit perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 38, 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearth, A., Cousin, M.-E., & Siegrist, M. (2014b). Poultry consumers’ behaviour, risk perception and knowledge related to campylobacteriosis and domestic food safety. Food Control, 44, 166–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C. (2010). Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 32, 256–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, J. C. (2012). Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making? Risk Analysis, 32, 25–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, G. (2003). Emotional reactions to environmental risks: Consequentialist versus ethical evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, G., & Pfister, H. R. (2000). Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks. Acta Psychologica, 104, 317–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, A. (2008). Lead is like mercury: Risk comparisons, analogies and mental models. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technology: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication, 32, 514–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). The power of association: Its impact on willingness to buy GM food. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 17, 1142–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2016). The stability of risk and benefit perceptions: A longitudinal study assessing the perception of biotechnology. Journal of Risk Research, 19, 461–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cousin, M.-E., & Siegrist, M. (2010). The public’s knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences. Health, Risk & Society, 12, 231–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, R. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot, J. I. M., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 33, 307–317.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2010). Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 30, 1363–1373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: Implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 30, 1116–1128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2012a). Fear and anger: Antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 435–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2012b). Mobile communication in the public mind: Insights from free associations related to mobile phone base stations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 18, 649–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (European Food and Safety Authority). (2006). Opinion of the scientific panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) related to a new long-term carcinogenicity study on aspartame. The EFSA Journal, 356, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G., & Durant, J. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4, 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, C. M., & Eiser, J. R. (1984). Characterising the perceived risks and benefits of some health issues. Risk Analysis, 4, 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, L., Lusk, J., Jaeger, S., Traill, W. B., Moore, M., Valli, C., … Yee, W. M. (2005). Objective and subjective knowledge: Impacts on consumer demand for genetically modified foods in the United States and the European Union. AgBioforum, 7, 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Cohen, G. L., Gastil, J., & Slovic, P. (2010). Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 501–516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 465–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpowicz-Lazreg, C., & Mullet, E. (1993). Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis, 13, 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Bostrom, A., Kuttschreuter, M., Savadori, L., Spence, A., & White, M. (2012). Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception: A review of conceptual approaches of the past 40 years and suggestions for future research. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. (2009). Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Analysis, 29, 1255–1264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Visschers, V., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Analysis, 32, 464–477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter, M., Farrell, D., Olevitch, L., & Brennan, L. (2012). Tailoring health messages: Customizing communication with computer technology. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, S227–S232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • L’Orange Seigo, S., Arvai, J., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Predictors of risk and benefit perception of carbon capture and storage (CCS) in regions with different stages of deployment. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 25, 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, J. C.-l., & Tao, J. (2003). Perception of environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese. Risk Analysis, 23, 669–684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., & Chapman, G. B. (2012). Why do people like natural? Instrumental and ideational bases for the naturalness preference. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2859–2878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1427–1453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Prior attitudes, salient value similarity, and dimensionality: Toward an integrative model of trust in risk regulation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1674–1700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, E., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L., & Bostrom, A. (1990). What do we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Analysis, 10, 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., et al. (2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 147–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C., Conti, J., & Herr Harthorn, B. (2009). Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 752–758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Savadori, L., Rumiati, R., & Bonini, N. (1998). Expertise and regional differences in risk perception: The case of Italy. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis, 35, 2183–2201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Connor, M., & Keller, C. (2012). Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction, and the acceptance of GM field experiments. Risk Analysis, 32, 1394–1403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459–466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713–720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25, 211–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2006). Lay people’s perception of food hazards: Comparing aggregated data and individual data. Appetite, 47, 324–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B. (2014). Human and nature-caused hazards: The affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Analysis, 34, 1482–1494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. H. M. (2013). Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59, 112–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 588–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Flynn, J. H., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603–1607.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Kraus, N., & Covello, V. T. (1990). What should we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Analysis, 10, 389–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szalay, L. B., & Deese, J. (1978). Subjective meaning and culture: An assessment through word associations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., & Slovic, P. (1988). Societal risks seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Climatic Change, 114, 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K. (2005). What is responsible for the fair process effect. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 273–300). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verplanken, B. (1989). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environment and Behavior, 21, 371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., Backhans, A., Collineau, L., Iten, D., Loesken, S., Postma, M., … Stärk, K. D. C. (2015). Perception of antimicrobial usage, antimicrobial resistance and policy measures to reduce antimicrobial usage in convenient samples of Belgian, French, German, Swedish and Swiss pig farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 19, 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy, 39, 3621–3629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. F., & de Vries, N. K. (2007). How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Analysis, 27, 715–727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 46, 292–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 33, 333–347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2014). Find the differences and the similarities: Relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H. M., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2012). The role of convictions and trust for public protest potential in the case of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 18, 919–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Impact of knowledge and misconceptions on benefit and risk perception of CCS. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 6557–6562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29, 425–437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger, L. L., & Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088–2093.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland (FHNW), Olten, Switzerland

    Vivianne H. M. Visschers

  2. Institute for Environmental Decision Making, Consumer Behavior, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Michael Siegrist

Authors
  1. Vivianne H. M. Visschers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Siegrist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivianne H. M. Visschers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Agelab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Martina Raue

  2. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Eva Lermer

  3. Institute of Psychology, UMIT - Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tyrol, Austria

    Bernhard Streicher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M. (2018). Differences in Risk Perception Between Hazards and Between Individuals. In: Raue, M., Lermer, E., Streicher, B. (eds) Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation