Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Perception and Societal Response

  • Reference work entry
Handbook of Risk Theory

Abstract

Risk perception is important in policy making. Most research on risk perception has been carried out with nonexperts and members of the public at large, but there are some interesting exceptions, notably the study of experts. Very large differences in risk perception usually appear between experts and nonexperts, but they seem to be partly related to responsibility and social validation and not only to knowledge. Models of risk perception have usually been based on Cultural Theory or the Psychometric Model, but they have had only limited success in accounting for perceived risk. The chapter discusses factors which can improve on the explanatory power of risk perception models, such as Interfering with Nature, Risk Sensitivity, and Risk Target (self or others). Emotions and values have also been investigated. Emotions do play an important role in risk perception, but values have so far not been found to be important. “Affect” is an unclear term since it can refer both to emotions and attitudes. Trust has been another focus of research on risk perception. Trust has almost always been conceived as social trust, i.e., trust in people or organizations. Trust in this sense has a limited influence on risk perception. Epistemic trust, i.e., trust in the science behind risk assessments and risk management, is possibly more important than social trust; at any rate, both types of trust should be considered. Finally, new risks appear all the time, and they require new concepts if we are to understand how people perceive and react to them.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
eBook
USD 599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Breakwell G (2007) The psychology of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Combs B, Slovic P (1979) Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journalism Q 56:837–843,849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns – a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (1996) Stämningar i Storuman efter folkomröstningen om ett djupförvar (Moods in Storuman after the repository referendum). Projekt Rapport No. PR D-96-004, SKB, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (1998) Stämningar i Malå efter folkomröstningen 1997 (Moods in Malå after the 1997 referendum). Projekt Rapport No. PR D-98-03, SKB, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg B-M, Sjöberg L (1991) Attitudes and conceptions of adolescents with regard to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. J Appl Soc Psychol 21:2007–2035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg B-M, Sjöberg L (2009) The perception of risks of technology. In: Grimvall G, Jacobsson D, Thedéen T, Holmgren Å (eds) Risks in technical systems. Springer, New York, pp 255–271

    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 Sci 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner GT, Gould LC (1989) Public perceptions of the risk and benefits of technology. Risk Anal 9:225–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G, Allum N, Wagner W, Kronberger N, Torgersen H, Hampel J et al (2004) GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Anal 24:185–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris P, Middleton W (1994) The illusion of control and optimism about health: on being less at risk but no more in control than others. Br J Soc Psychol 33:369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang L, Sun K, Ban J, Bi J (2010) Public perception of Blue-Algae bloom risk in Hongze Lake of China. Environ Manag 45:1065–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JEC, Lemyre L, Krewski D (2010) A multi-method, multi-hazard approach to explore the uniqueness of terrorism risk perceptions and worry. J Appl Soc Psychol 40:241–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Fischhoff B (2003) Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: a national field experiment. Psychol Sci 14:144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs M, Gilbert S (1986) News influence on our pictures of the world. In: Bryant J, Zillman D (eds) Perspectives on media effects. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrall JF III (1986) A review of the record. Regulation 10:25–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers IB, McCaulley MH, Quenk NL, Hammer AL (2003) MBTI manual, 3rd edn. CPP, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur EJ (1982) Multiple regression in behavioral research. Explanation and prediction. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal 17:43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quarantelli EL (1954) The nature and conditions of panic. Am J Sociol 60:265–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson WS (1950) Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am Sociol Rev 15:351–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Wright G (2001) Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: myth or reality? Risk Anal 21:341–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundmo T, Sjöberg L (1996) Employee risk perception related to offshore oil platform movements. Saf Sci 24:211–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmiege SJ, Bryan A, Klein WMP (2009) Distinctions between worry and perceived risk in the context of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 39:95–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, San Diego, pp 1–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH, Melech G, Lehmann A, Burgess S, Harris M, Owens V (2001) Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. J Cross Cult Psychol 32:519–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry-Brennan F, Devine-Wright H, Devine-Wright P (2010) Public understanding of hydrogen energy: a theoretical approach. Energy Policy 38:5311–5319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva C, Jenkins-Smith HC, Barke RP (2007) Reconciling scientists’ beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: explaining preferred radiation protection standards. Risk Anal 27:758–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1992) Psychological reactions to a nuclear accident. In: Baarli J (ed) Conference on the radiological and radiation protection problems in Nordic regions, Tromsö, 21–22 Nov 1991. Nordic Society for Radiation Protection, Oslo, p 12

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1999a) Consequences of perceived risk: demand for mitigation. J Risk Res 2:129–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1999b) Life-values and the tyranny of unique decisions. In: Hermerén G, Sahlin N-E (eds) The value of life. Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm, pp 73–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000a) Consequences matter, “risk” is marginal. J Risk Res 3:287–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000c) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3:353–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2001a) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 21:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2001b) Political decisions and public risk perception. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 72:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2001c) Whose risk perception should influence decisions? Reliab Eng Syst Saf 72:149–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2002a) The allegedly simple structure of experts’ risk perception: an urban legend in risk research. Sci Technol Hum Value 27:443–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2002b) Are received risk perception models alive and well? Risk Anal 22:665–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2002c) Attitudes toward technology and risk: going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sci 35:379–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2003a) Attitudes and risk perceptions of stakeholders in a nuclear waste siting issue. Risk Anal 23:739–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2003b) The different dynamics of personal and general risk. Risk Manag Int J 5:19–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2003c) Distal factors in risk perception. J Risk Res 6:187–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2003d) Risk perception is not what it seems: the psychometric paradigm revisited. In: Andersson K (ed) VALDOR conference 2003.VALDOR, Stockholm, pp 14–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2004a) Explaining individual risk perception: the case of nuclear waste. Risk Manag Int J 6:51–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2004b) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal 24:739–751

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2005) The perceived risk of terrorism. Risk Manag Int J 7:43–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2006a) Rational risk perception: Utopia or dystopia? J Risk Res 9:683–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2006b) Will the real meaning of affect please stand up? J Risk Res 9:101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2007a) Emotions and risk perception. Risk Manag Int J 9:222–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2007b) Försummade risker. (Neglected risks). In: Derefeldt G, Sjöstedt G (eds) SDSS Årsbok 2007. Strukturerad osäkerhet, ostrukturerad säkerhet i en globaliserad värld.Utrikespolitiska institutet, Stockholm, pp 39–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2008a) Antagonism, trust and perceived risk. Risk Manag Int J 10:32–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2008b) Attityd till slutförvar av använt kärnbränsle: Struktur och orsaker (Attitudes toward the final repository for spent nuclear power: Structure and causes). Research Report No. R-08-119, SKB, Stockholm. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2008c) Genetically modified food in the eyes of the public and experts. Risk Manag Int J 10:168–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2009) Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository. Saf Sci 47:542–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, af Wåhlberg A (2002) Risk perception and new age beliefs. Risk Anal 22:751–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (2008a) Attitudes towards nuclear waste and siting policy: experts and the public. In: Lattefer AP (ed) Nuclear waste research: siting, technology and treatment. Nova Publishers, New York, pp 47–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (2008b) Risk perception by politicians and the public. Energy Environ 19:455–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Engelberg E (2010) Risk perception and movies: a study of availability as a factor in risk perception. Risk Anal 30:95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Torell G (1993) The development of risk acceptance and moral valuation. Scand J Psychol 34:223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Wester-Herber M (2008) Too much trust in (social) trust? The importance of epistemic concerns and perceived antagonism. Int J Glob Environ Isssue 30:30–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Winroth E (1986) Risk, moral value of actions, and mood. Scand J Psychol 27:191–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Kolarova D, Rucai A-A, Bernstr��m M-L (2000a) Risk perception in Bulgaria and Romania. In: Renn O, Rohrmann B (eds) Cross-cultural risk perception. A survey of empirical studies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 145–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Truedsson J, Frewer LJ, Prades A (2000b) Through a glass darkly: experts’ and the public’s mutual risk perception. In: Cottam MP, Harvey DW, Pape RP, Tait J (eds) Foresight and precaution, vol 1. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 1157–1162

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(14–20):36–39

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds: why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tengs OT, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC et al (1995) Five-hundred life saving interventions and their cost effectiveness. Risk Anal 15:369–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 4:207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2010) The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J Nanopart Res 12:373–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West J, Bailey I, Winter M (2010) Renewable energy policy and public perceptions of renewable energy: a cultural theory approach. Energy Policy 38:5739–5748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wester-Herber M, Fight, flight or freeze: assumed reactions of the public during a crisis. J Contingen Crisis Manage (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A, Dake K (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 119:41–60

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Risk Research, Center for Media and Economic Psychology, Marketing and Strategy Department, Stockholm School of Economics, Box 6501, 113 83, Stockholm, Sweden

    Prof. Lennart Sjöberg

Authors
  1. Prof. Lennart Sjöberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lennart Sjöberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Sabine Roeser

  2. Philosophy Department, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Sabine Roeser

  3. Human Technology Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Rafaela Hillerbrand

  4. Department of Plant Physiology and Forest Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

    Per Sandin

  5. Section for Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Martin Peterson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry

Sjöberg, L. (2012). Risk Perception and Societal Response. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_25

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1432-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1433-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation