Cited by 358

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception

Slimak, Michael W., Dietz, Thomas·2006·Risk Analysis

Abstract

A mail survey on ecological risk perception was administered in the summer of 2002 to a randomized sample of the lay public and to selected risk professionals at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The ranking of 24 ecological risk items, from global climate change to commercial fishing, reveals that the lay public is more concerned about low‐probability, high‐consequence risks whereas the risk professionals are more concerned about risks that pose long‐term, ecosystem‐level impacts. To test the explanatory power of the value‐belief‐norm (VBN) theory for risk perception, respondents were questioned about their personal values, spiritual beliefs, and worldviews. The most consistent predictors of the risk rankings are belief in the new ecological paradigm (NEP) and Schwartz's altruism. The NEP and Schwartz's altruism explain from 19% to 46% of the variance in the risk rankings. Religious beliefs account for less than 6% of the variance and do not show a consistent pattern in predicting risk perception although religious fundamentalists are generally less concerned about the risk items. While not exerting as strong an impact, social‐structural variables do have some influence on risk perception. Ethnicities show no effect on the risk scales but the more educated and financially well‐off are less concerned about the risk items. Political leanings have no direct influence on risk rankings, but indirectly affect rankings through the NEP. These results reveal that the VBN theory is a plausible explanation for the differences measured in the respondents' perception of ecological risk.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Armstrong K., 1994, A History of God: The 4,000‐Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
  2. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00743.x · DOI
  3. 10.2307/1387582 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/0013916596283003 · DOI
  5. Dietz T., 2001, Celebrating Scholarship, 31
  6. 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444 · DOI
  7. Dietz T., 2002, Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 562
  8. 10.1016/1053-5357(95)90022-5 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/001391659803000402 · DOI
  10. 10.2307/1242685 · DOI
  11. Douglas M., 1982, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers
  12. Dunlap R. E., 2002, Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale, Social Science Quarterly, 56, 425
  13. 10.2307/1386410 · DOI
  14. 10.2307/1386580 · DOI
  15. 10.1080/08941928909380692 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01326.x · DOI
  17. Guber D. L., 2003, The Grassroots of a Green Revolution: Polling America on the Environment
  18. 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.04.007 · DOI
  19. 10.2307/3512527 · DOI
  20. Jaeger C., 2001, Risk, Uncertainly and Rational Action
  21. Kalof L., 2002, Race, gender and environmentalism: The atypical values and beliefs of white men, Race, Gender & Class, 9, 1
  22. Kanagy C. L., 1993, A “greening” of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample, Social Science Quarterly, 74, 674
  23. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. Kempton W., 1995, Environmental Values in American Culture
  25. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00669.x · DOI
  26. 10.1111/0272-4332.202019 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.x · DOI
  28. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00754.x · DOI
  29. Plough A., 1987, The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 4
  30. Rosa E. McCright A. M. &Renn O. (2001).The risk society: Theoretical frames and state management challenges.Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Society of Risk Analysis‐Europe Edinburgh Scotland .
  31. 10.1111/0272-4332.212116 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/00139160021972676 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x · DOI
  34. 10.1111/0272-4332.00001 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Slovic P., 2002, The Perception of Risk
  36. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00439.x · DOI
  37. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x · DOI
  39. Stern P., 1999, A value‐belief‐norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism, Human Ecology Review, 6, 81
  40. 10.1177/0013916595276001 · DOI
  41. 10.1177/0013164498058006008 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x · DOI
  43. Suzuki D., 1990, Genethics: The Clash Between the New Genetics and Human Values
  44. US EPA, 2000, Toward Integrated Environmental Decision‐making
  45. US EPA, 1987, Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems
  46. Whitfield S.(1998).The public side of the nuclear waste issue: Risk perception and value orientation.Ph.D. Dissertation George Mason University Fairfax VA .
  47. 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00438.x · DOI
  48. 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00438.x · DOI
  49. Wolkomir M., 1997, Substantive religious belief and environmentalism, Social Science Quarterly, 78, 96

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Slimak, M. W., & Dietz, T.
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11-15
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
1689-1705
ISSN
  • 0272-4332
  • 1539-6924
Cited by
358
References
5
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x
The paper
Slimak, M. W., & Dietz, T. (2006). Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x