The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications
Abstract
Subjective judgements, whether by experts or lay people, are a major component in any risk assessment. If such judgements are faulty, risk management efforts are likely to be misdirected. This paper begins with an analysis of biases exhibited by lay people and experts when they make judgements about risk. Next, the similarities and differences between lay and expert evaluations are examined in the context of a specific set of hazardous activities and technologies. Finally, insights from this research are applied to the problems of informing people about risk and forecasting public response towards nuclear power.
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?
In the citing paper
“This belief is unlikely to change without further interventions, such as risk analysis, safety training and the sharing ideas or experiences to be safer around horses [71].”
From What People Really Think About Safety around Horses: The Relationship between Risk Perception, Values and Safety Behaviours (2020) · cites this paper as [71]
Citations
Cites
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chapman, M., Thomas, M., & Thompson, K. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10122222 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S.
- Affiliations
- Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401, U. S. A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1981-04-30
- Volume
- 376
- Issue
- 1764
- Pages
- 17-34
- ISSN
- 0080-4630
- 2053-9169
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 1
- 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
