Riskperception – modeller och principer. The Swedish Risk Academy Annual Meeting May 14, 2013 Lennart Sjöberg Center for Risk Research Stockholm School of Economics Sweden. Outline. Why study risk perception? Experimental work Factors in risk perception
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Riskperception – modeller och principer
The Swedish Risk Academy
May 14, 2013
Center for Risk Research
Stockholm School of Economics
As you will see,
my research questions the “received view”
from well-known work on risk perception,
critical comments are invited
Typically social trust (in experts or organisations) has only a weak effect on perceived risk – correlations of 0.3 or less
But at the aggregate level it is easier to see a relationship.
See graph based on surveys of chemical risks, next slide
GFI=0.95, AGFI=0.93, RMSEA=0.030
How important is ”risk”?
1. get a severe cold during the next 12 months
2. become infected with the HIV virus during the same time period
Individual differences in risk perception
the number of
checked as risky,
The level of risk judgments varies strongly
and is a very important explanatory factor
in risk perception models:
Specific risk factors
Specific reactions, not to general concept
”Chemicals” is a highly variable concept.
Sometimes very risky, sometimes not.
Attitude (affect), trust, risk sensitivity
and attitude towards nuclear power (1991 study)
Attitude to nuclear power
Attitude to the repository
Risk to the municipality
Model of attitude to the repository explaining 65% of the variance
Own emotional reaction to nuclear power
The anticipated emotional reaction of others to nuclear power
Others’ emotional reaction
Own emotional reaction
Ratings of risk dimensions of nuclear waste
by the public, and male and female experts
Expert-public difference for both genders
Regression coefficients in model of perceived nuclear waste risk, results from analyzing data from experts (A) and engineers (B) plotted against results from analyzing data from the public.
Very similar models for experts and the public
Interfering with nature
Severity of consequences
Experts’ risk ratings unrelated to “subjective factors,
But only for Dread and Novelty and for general risk