Experts have been claimed to perceive risks in a different way than the general public. It is likely that experts often see risks in their own field of expertise as smaller than the public does, but that does not imply that their risk perception is also driven by other factors. Topical experts and general risk assessors are two quite different types of experts. Still, common assertions as to the simple structure of expert risk perception, said to be related only to technical or statistical risk estimates, builds on a meager database consisting of 15 general risk assessors. Results from a study reported here show that the factors explaining experts’ risk perception are similar to those of a comparable group of nontopical experts with a similar level of technological literacy and to the general public, and that the level of explained variance is quite comparable for experts and the general public.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barke, R. P., and H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis13:425-439.
2.
Barny, M.-H., J. Brenot, J. Dos Santos, and J.-P. Pages. 1990. Perception des risques majeurs dans la population bordelaise et chez les experts. Note SEGP/LSEES 90/17. Paris: Centre d’etudes nucleaires de Fontenay-aux-roses.
3.
Boholm, Å.1998. Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research1:135-164.
4.
Cross, F. B.1998. Facts and values in risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59:27-40.
5.
Draper, N. R., and H. Smith. 1998. Applied regression analysis, 3d ed.New York: John Wiley.
6.
Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M., and L. Sjöberg. 1991. Attitudes and conceptions of adolescents with regard to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology21:2007-2035.
7.
Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences9:127-152.
8.
Flynn, J., P. Slovic, and C. K. Mertz. 1993. Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis13:643-648.
9.
Gray, G. M., and J. D. Graham. 1993. Intuitive toxicology: Comments on public perceptions and the role of institutional affiliation in expert opinions. Comments on Toxicology4:501-504.
10.
Heriard-Dubreuil, G. F.1999. Social acceptability of nuclear power. In Nuclear in a changing world, Vol. 2, 24-32. Brussels: European Commission, DG XII.
11.
Kraus, N., T. Malmfors, and P. Slovic. 1993. Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Comments on Toxicology4:441-484.
12.
Lynn, F. M.1986. The interplay between science and values in regulating environmental risks. Science, Technology, & Human Values11:40-50.
13.
Marris, C., I. Langford, T. Saunderson, and T. O’Riordan. 1997. Exploring the “psychometric paradigm”: Comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis17:303-312.
14.
Marris, C., I. H. Langford, and T. O’Riordan. 1998. A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis18:635-647.
15.
McDaniels, T. L., L. J. Axelrod, N. S. Cavanagh, and P. Slovic. 1997. Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis17:341-352.
16.
Sjöberg, L.1996a. A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry68:219-225.
17.
Sjöberg, L.1996b. Risk perceptions by politicians and the public. Rhizikon: Risk research reports 23. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.
18.
Sjöberg, L.1997. Perceived risk and tampering with nature: An application of the extended psychometric model to nuclear disaster risk.
19.
Sjöberg, L.1999. Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Human Ecology Review6 (2): 1-9.
20.
Sjöberg, L.2000. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research3:353-367.
21.
Sjöberg, L. Forthcoming. Are received risk perception models alive and well?Risk Analysis.
22.
Sjöberg, L., and B.-M. Drottz-Sjöberg. 1993. Attitudes to nuclear waste. Rhizikon: Risk research report 12. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.
23.
Sjöberg, L., and B.-M. Drottz-Sjöberg. 1994. Risk perception of nuclear waste: Experts and the public. Rhizikon: Risk research report 16. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.
24.
Sjöberg, L., B. Jansson, J. Brenot, L. Frewer, A. Prades, and A. Tönnesen. 2000. Radiation risk perception in commemoration of Chernobyl: A cross-national study in three waves. Rhizikon: Risk research report 33. Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.
25.
Sjöberg, L., A. Oskarsson, Å. Bruce, and P. O. Darnerud. 1997. Riskerna med att äta mat. Allmänhet och experter bedömer riskerna olika.(Food risks. The public and experts make different judgments). Vår Föda49 (7): 3-9.
26.
Slovic, P.1992. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In Social theories of risk, edited by S. Krimsky and D. Golding, 117-152. Westport, CT: Praeger.
27.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1979. Rating the risks. Environment21 (3): 14-20, 36-39.
28.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough?, edited by R. Schwing and J. Albers. New York: Plenum.
29.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. In Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology, edited by R. W. Kates, C. Hohenhemser, and J. X. Kasperson, 92-125. Boulder, CO: Westview.
30.
Slovic, P., M. Layman, N. Kraus, J. Flynn, J. Chalmers, and G. Gesell. 1991. Perceived risk, stigma, and potential economic impact of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis11:683-696.
31.
Slovic, P., T. Malmfors, D. Krewski, C. K. Mertz, N. Neil, and S. Bartlett. 1995. Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis15:661-675.
32.
Spedden, S. E.1993. Intuitive toxicology: Comments on the effects of complexity and uncertainty on expert assessments and lay perceptions of risk. Comments on Toxicology4: 529-532.
