Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Methodology of Risk Perception Research

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk perception is not strictly a matter ofsensory perception, but of attitudesand expectations. As such, it can be studied byreasonably well developed methods of attitudemeasurement and psychological scaling. Suchmeasurement needs to be applied in a pragmaticfashion, however, since the discussions of fundamentalmeasurement and requirements of scale levelsappropriate for various types of statistical analysis hasfailed in establishing a useful basis for empiricalresearch. The paper also discuses samplingprocedures and the response rateproblem. In risk perception work, there is usually abias involving too many respondents withan above average level ofeducation, but that variable tends to be weaklyrelated to risk perception variables. Finally,post-modern claims and their rejection ofquantitative methods are critically discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A. & Day, G. S. (1990). Marketing Research. 4th edn. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. (1996). A Functional Theory of Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boholm, Å. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research 1: 135–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1987). The psychology of risk. In: W. T. Singleton & J. Hovden (eds.), Risk and Decisions. New York: Wiley, pp. 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments, 2nd edn. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, N. (1992). Abstract measurement theory and the revolution that never happened. Psychological Science 3: 186–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crews, F. (1996). The verdict on Freud. Psychological Science 7: 63–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (1994a). House of Cards. Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. (1994b). Psychological measurement. Psychological Review 101: 278–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (1991). The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociology 17: 225–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1991). Perception of Risk. Studies of Risk Attitudes, Perceptions and Definitions. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Risk Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M., & Persson, L. (1993). Public reaction to radiation: Fear, anxiety or phobia? Health Physics 64: 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. & Sjöberg, L. (1990). Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology 10: 135–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagley, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiser, J. R., Podpadec, T. J., Reicher, S. D. & Stevenage, S. V. (1998). Muddy waters and heavy metal: Time and attitude guide judgments of pollution. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, G. (1961). Some aspects of psychophysical research. In W. A. Rosenblith (eds.), Sensory Communication. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, G. & Bratfisch, O. (1965). Subjective distance and emotional involvement: A psychological mechanism. Acta Psychologica 24: 446–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, G. & Sjöberg, L. (1965). Scaling. Annual Review of Psychology 16: 451–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englander, T., Farago, K., Slovic, P. & Fischhoff, B. (1986). A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social Behavior 1: 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. & Greenbaum, C. W. (1995). Significance tests die hard: The amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory & Psychology 5: 75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G. W., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Nair, I. & Lave, L. B. (1991). What risks are people concerned about? Risk Analysis 11: 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, A. W. (1995). The role of the unconscious in the perception of risks. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 6: 15–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, A. W. (1996). The moral dilemma in the social management of risk. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 7: 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of Mental Tests. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, M. A. (1997a). Whores of the Court. The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice. New York: Regan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, R. L. (1997b). In praise of the null hypothesis statistical test. American Psychologist 52: 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M. & McClelland, G. H. (1998). Measurement. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I. Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 180–232.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehner, P. E. & Noma, E. (1980). A new solution to the problem of finding all numerical solutions to ordered metric structures. Psychometrika 45: 135–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, D. (1991). Worry of technological activities and life concerns. Risk Analysis 11: 315–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan, M. B. (1991). Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C. & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine 306: 1259–1262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrall, J. F., III (1986). A review of the record. Regulation(Nov/Dec): 25–34.

  • Noll, R. (1994). The Jung Cult. Origins of a Charismatic Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyland, L. G. (1993). Risk Perception in Brazil and Sweden (Rhizikon: Risk Research Report No. 15). Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.

  • Ramsberg, J. & Sjöberg, L. (1997). The cost-effectiveness of life saving interventions in Sweden. Risk Analysis 17: 467–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsberg, J. & Sjöberg, L. (1998). The importance of cost and risk characteristics for attitudes towards lifesaving interventions. Risk - Health, Safety & Environment 9: 271–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundmo, T. & Sjöberg, L. (1998). Risk perception by offshore oil personnel related to platform movements. Risk Analysis 18: 111–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegloff, E. A. (1990). Comment. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85: 248–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N., Groves, R. M. & Schuman, H. (1998). Survey methods. In: D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I. Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 143–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1971a). The new functionalism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 12: 29–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1971b). Three models for the analysis of subjective ratios. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 12: 217–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1979). Strength of belief and risk. Policy Sciences 11: 39–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1980). The risks of risk analysis. Acta Psychologica 45: 301–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1981). On the homogeneity of psychological processes. Quality and Quantity 15: 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1983). Defining stimulus and response: An examination of current procedures. Quality and Quantity 17: 369–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1987a). Conceptual and empirical status of mental constructs in the analysis of action. Quality and Quantity 16: 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1987b). Risk and Society. Studies in Risk Taking and Risk Generation. Hemel Hempstead, England: George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1994). Perceived Risk vs Demand for Risk Reduction (Rhizikon: Risk Research Report No. 18). Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.

  • Sjöberg, L. (1996). A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 68: 219–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decision and Policy 2: 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1998a). Risk perception: experts and the public. European Psychologist 3: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1998b). Why do people demand risk reduction? In: S. Lydersen, G. K. Hansen, & H. A. Sandtorv (eds), ESREL-98: Safety and Reliability. Trondheim: A. A. Balkema, pp. 751–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1998c). Will and success - individual and national. In: L. Sjöberg, R. Bagozzi & D. Ingvar (eds), Will and Economic Behavior. Stockholm: EFI, pp. 85–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1998d). Worry and risk perception. Risk Analysis 18: 85–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1999a). Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation. Journal of Risk Research 2: 129–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1999b). Policy implications of risk perception research: A case of the emperor's new clothes? In: P. Hubert & C. Mays (eds), Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference. “Risk Analysis: Opening the Process”. Paris: IPSN, pp. 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1999c). Risk perception in Western Europe. Ambio 28: 543–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. & Drottz, B.-M. (1987). Psychological reactions to cancer risks after the Chernobyl accident. Medical Oncology and Tumor Pharmacotherapy 4: 259–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L., Kolarova, D., Rucai, A.-A. & Bernström, M.-L. (In press). Risk perception and media risk reports in Bulgaria and Romania. In: O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (eds), Cross-Cultural Risk Perception.

  • Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review 64: 153–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. & Jordan, B. (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face interviews. Journal of the American Statistical Association 85: 232–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology 33: 529–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentland, E. J. & Smith, K. W. (1993). Survey Responses. An Evaluation of Their Validity. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windschuttle, K. (1996). The Killing of History. How a Discipline is Being Murdered by Literary Critics and Social Theorists. Paddington NSW: Macleay.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics, Box 6501, 113 83, Stockholm, Sweden

    Lennart Sjöberg

Authors
  1. Lennart Sjöberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sjöberg, L. The Methodology of Risk Perception Research. Quality & Quantity 34, 407–418 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004838806793

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004838806793

Search

Navigation