The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heading into the unknown: Everyday strategies for managing risk and uncertainty
Abstract
Within interdisciplinary risk research, strategies for managing risk and uncertainty based on cognitive rationality are seen as more effective than non-rational strategies, such as hope, belief, or avoidance. However this dichotomy between rational and irrational strategies neglects a whole range of everyday approaches to risk that are neither completely rational nor irrational as they may involve the use of prior knowledge and experience. These in between strategies include the use of emotion, trust, and intuition to make decisions, and they can be seen as complementing and overcoming some of the limitations of instrumental and calculative forms of risk and uncertainty management and therefore in combination they facilitate more effective control over the future. In late modern societies, individuals' decision-making has become increasingly important and problematic because the rising complexity and volatility of decision-making situations. Individuals have to make important or ‘fateful’ decisions in an almost reflex-like manner, without enough time or knowledge available. Such decision-making requires increased trust, for example in the experts with appropriate knowledge and skills. The important aspect of trust is less its implicit or unconscious aspect but the underlying experience-based knowledge. Similar to intuition, trust refers to tacit knowledge and pre-conscious awareness of reality. Intuition seems close to the kind of embodied (or even innate) knowledge high risk…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Below the "tip of the iceberg" lies the unknown, assumed and unevaluated risks.
“Below the “tip of the iceberg” (a metaphor) [167] lies the unknown, assumed and unevaluated risks [168].”
From What People Really Think About Safety around Horses: The Relationship between Risk Perception, Values and Safety Behaviours (2020) · cites this paper as [168]
Citations
Cites
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578601 · Cited by 4,163
Weber, M. (2005) · Social Theory · doi:10.1515/9781474469654-020 · Cited by 1,240
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chapman, M., Thomas, M., & Thompson, K. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10122222 · Cited by 20
Tosun Altınöz, Ş., Doğan, U., Ercan Altınöz, A., & Üzmez, H. (2024) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10608-023-10450-0 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Zinn, J. O.
- Venue
- Health, Risk & Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 439-450
- ISSN
- 1369-8575
- 1469-8331
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review