[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v17y1997i6p745-757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?

Author

Listed:
  • George O. Rogers
Abstract
This paper examines the relationship between perceived risk and experience. This research addresses the processes by which people learn about risk and choose among real life prospects with associated uncertainties, risks and benefits. By comparing the impact of acute risk events with that of chronic risk events on public perception of risk during and after the events, this research focuses on the learning processes that characterize what kinds of risk events alter the perception of risk. Comparing materialized hazards at existing facilities with the risks associated with potential facilities, this research addresses risk choices among real life prospects. This study uses a classic pre‐post quasi‐experimental design. Surveys conducted in the Spring of 1992 on perceived and acceptable risk in Odessa and La Porte, Texas were conducted prior to risk events. Respondents from that survey were re‐interviewed in the Spring of 1993 after the risk events to form a panel design. This paper analyzes the affect of risk events on perceived risk and the implications of these experiences for public policy concerning technological risk. The empirical results suggest that the social processes that construct and maintain risk in the public eye are at least as important as, if not more important than, the physical and psychological dimensions of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • George O. Rogers, 1997. "The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 745-757, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:17:y:1997:i:6:p:745-757
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01280.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01280.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01280.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jin Tan Liu & V. Kerry Smith, 2022. "Risk Communication and Attitude Change: Taiwan's National Debate Over Nuclear Power," Chapters, in: The Economics of Environmental Risk, chapter 9, pages 118-136, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Donald MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Robert G. Mason & John Detweiler & Stephen E. Binney & Brian Dodd, 1994. "Perceived Risks of Radioactive Waste Transport Through Oregon: Results of a Statewide Survey," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 5-14, February.
    5. Mitchell, Robert Cameron & Carson, Richard T, 1986. "Property Rights, Protest, and the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 285-290, May.
    6. Smith, V. Kerry & Michaels, R. Gregory, 1987. "How did households interpret chernobyl? : A bayesian analysis of risk perceptions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 359-364.
    7. Viscusi, W Kip & O'Connor, Charles J, 1984. "Adaptive Responses to Chemical Labeling: Are Workers Bayesian Decision Makers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 942-956, December.
    8. Viscusi, W Kip, 1989. "Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 235-263, September.
    9. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(5), pages 497-502, October.
    10. George Rogers, 1997. "Dynamic Risk Perception in Two Communities: Risk Events and Changes in Perceived Risk," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 59-80.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jill J. McCluskey & Gordon C. Rausser, 2001. "Estimation of Perceived Risk and Its Effect on Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 42-55.
    2. Ding, Yulian & Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2013. "The influence of trust on consumer behavior: An application to recurring food risks in Canada," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 214-223.
    3. Bruno Chauvin & Danièle Hermand & Etienne Mullet, 2007. "Risk Perception and Personality Facets," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 171-185, February.
    4. Yuyao Feng & Guowen Li & Xiaolei Sun & Jianping Li, 2022. "Identification of tourists’ dynamic risk perception—the situation in Tibet," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Fengxiu Zhang, 2022. "Not all extreme weather events are equal: Impacts on risk perception and adaptation in public transit agencies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Matthew Billman & Kayode Atoba & Courtney Thompson & Samuel Brody, 2023. "How about Now? Changes in Risk Perception before and after Hurricane Irma," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, May.
    7. Giesbert, Lena, 2012. "Subjective Risk and Participation in Micro Life Insurance in Ghana," GIGA Working Papers 210, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    8. Junji Urata & Adam J. Pel, 2018. "People's Risk Recognition Preceding Evacuation and Its Role in Demand Modeling and Planning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 889-905, May.
    9. Drakos, Konstantinos & Müller, Cathérine, 2011. "Terrorism risk concern in Europe," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 195-197, August.
    10. Iuliana Armaş, 2006. "Earthquake Risk Perception in Bucharest, Romania," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1223-1234, October.
    11. Michael Greenberg & Kristen Crossney, 2006. "The changing face of public concern about pollution in the United States: A case study of New Jersey," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 255-268, December.
    12. Benyong Wei & Guiwu Su & Fenggui Liu & Qing Tian, 2021. "Public cognition and response to earthquake disaster: from the 2008 Mw7.9 Wenchuan to the 2013 Mw6.6 Lushan earthquakes in Sichuan Province, China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 106(3), pages 2751-2774, April.
    13. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    14. Yan Deng & Guiwu Su & Na Gao & Lei Sun, 2019. "Perceptions of earthquake emergency response and rescue in China: a comparison between experts and local practitioners," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 97(2), pages 643-664, June.
    15. Thomas Wilson & James Cole, 2007. "Potential impact of ash eruptions on dairy farms from a study of the effects on a farm in eastern Bay of Plenty, New Zealand; implications for hazard mitigation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 43(1), pages 103-128, October.
    16. Emily C. Tanner & John F. Tanner & Franklin Velasco Vizcaino & Zhiyong Yang, 2022. "Vaping and dynamic risk construction: Toward a model of adolescent risk‐related schema development," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 1244-1259, September.
    17. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    18. Yajing Shen & Shiyan Lou & Xiujuan Zhao & Kuai Peng Ip & Hui Xu & Jingwen Zhang, 2020. "Factors Impacting Risk Perception under Typhoon Disaster in Macao SAR, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-24, October.
    19. Raude, Jocelyn & MCColl, Kathleen & Flamand, Claude & Apostolidis, Themis, 2019. "Understanding health behaviour changes in response to outbreaks: Findings from a longitudinal study of a large epidemic of mosquito-borne disease," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 184-193.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    3. Tabea Herrmann & Olaf Hübler & Lukas Menkhoff & Ulrich Schmidt, 2017. "Allais for the poor: Relations to ability, information processing, and risk attitudes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 129-156, April.
    4. W. Viscusi & William Evans, 2006. "Behavioral Probabilities," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 5-15, January.
    5. Konstantinos Drakos & Catherine Mueller, 2014. "On the Determinants of Terrorism Risk Concern in Europe," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 291-310, June.
    6. Ted Gayer & James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 2002. "The Market Value of Reducing Cancer Risk: Hedonic Housing Prices with Changing Information," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(2), pages 266-289, October.
    7. Botzen, W.J.W. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2012. "Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 151-166.
    8. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    9. Kerim Keskin, 2016. "Inverse S-shaped probability weighting functions in first-price sealed-bid auctions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(1), pages 57-67, March.
    10. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    12. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & Arimura, Toshi H. & Chattopadhyay, Mriduchhanda & Katayama, Hajime, 2023. "Subjective risk belief function in the field: Evidence from cooking fuel choices and health in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    13. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
    14. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    15. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    16. Smith, V. Kerry, 1990. "Environmental Risk Perception and Valuation: Conventional versus Prospective Reference Theory," 1990 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Vancouver, Canada 270887, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Robert Bordley & Joseph Kadane, 1999. "Experiment-dependent priors in psychology and physics," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 213-227, December.
    18. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2014. "Biased Bayesian learning with an application to the risk-free rate puzzle," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 79-97.
    19. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    20. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:17:y:1997:i:6:p:745-757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.