En este artículo se presenta un trabajo empírico sobre la percepción social de los riesgos en un contexto español urbano. Desde un enfoque psicométrico, se consideran dos estrategias diferentes de análisis de datos: una basada en la variabilidad entre fuentes de riesgo, y la otra, en la variabilidad entre sujetos. La discusión se centra principalmente en las implicaciones de cada perspectiva respecto al patrón de resultados y al tipo de información específica que cada una puede aportar.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrunW. (1992). Cognitive components in risk perception: Natural versus manmade risks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 117–132.
2.
CutterS. L. (1993). Living with risk.Londres: Edward Arnold.
3.
EnglanderT.FaragoK.SlovicP.FischhoffB. (1986). A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social Behavior, 1, 55–66.
4.
FischhoffB.SlovicP.LichtensteinS.ReadS.CombsB. (1978). How safe is safe enough: A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risk and benefits. Policy Sciences, 8, 127–152.
GadnerG. T.GouldL. C. (1989). Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 9, 225–242.
7.
GadnerG. T.TiemannA.GouldL. C.DelucaD. R.DoobL. W.StolwijkJ. A. J. (1982). Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgements, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. The Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 179–197.
8.
GoszczynskaM.TyszkaT.SlovicP. (1991). Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 179–193.
9.
HardingC. M.EiserJ. R. (1984). Characterizing the perceived risks and benefits of some health issues. Risk Analysis, 4 (2), 131–141.
10.
HendrickxL. C. W. P. (1991). How versus how often. The role of scenario information and frecuency information in risk judgement and risky decision making.Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
11.
JianguangZ. (1994). Environmental hazards in the Chinese public's eyes. Risk Analysis, 14 (2), 163–513.
12.
KeownC. F. (1989). Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans. Risk Analysis, 9, 401–405.
13.
KleinhesselinkR. R.RosaE. A. (1991). Cognitive representation of risk perceptions. A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22 (1), 11–28.
14.
MechitovA. I.RebrikS. B. (1990). Studies of risk and safety perception in the USSR. EnBorcherdingK.LarichevO. I.MessickD. M. (Comps.), Contemporary issues in decision making (págs. 261–270). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
15.
PuyA. (1994). Percepción social del riesgo. Dimensiones de evaluación y predicción. Tesis doctoral. Madrid: Universidad Complutense.
16.
PuyA.AragonésJ. I. (1991). Riesgos percibidos por la sociedad urbana. Un estudio preliminar. Ende CastroR. (Comp.), Psicología Ambiental: Intervención y evaluación del entorno (págs. 323–329). Sevilla: Arquetipo Ediciones.
17.
PuyA.AragonésJ. I. (1992). Risk dimensions in the perception of personal risk exposure. EnMazisA.KaraletsouC. (Comps.), Socio-environmental metamorphoses: Builtscape, landscape, ethnoscape, euroscape (Vol. II, págs. 309–314). Salónica: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
18.
SlovicP. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.
19.
SlovicP. (1992). Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. EnKrimskyS.GoldingD. (Comps.), Social theories of risk (págs. 117–152). Wesport (Connecticut): Praeger.
20.
SlovicP.FischhoffB.LichtensteinS. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. EnSchwingR.C.AlbersW.A. (Comps.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough (págs. 181–216). Londres: Plenum Press.
21.
SlovicP.FischhoffB.LichtensteinS. (1984). Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety. Acta Psychologica, 56, 183–203.
SlovicP.FischhoffB.LichtensteinS. (1986). The psychometric study of risk perception. EnCovelloV.T.MenkesJ.MumpowerJ. (Comps.), Risk evaluation and management (págs. 3–24). Londres: Plenum Press.
24.
TeigenK. H.BrunW.SlovicP. (1988). Societal risk as seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111–130.
