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
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
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
“The results of the present study support the argument that, after becoming aware of a hazard's consequences, a feeling of responsibility for preventing said consequences is necessary to motivate an individual to act (Stern et al. 1999;Stern 2000;Slimak and Dietz 2006).”
From Household preparedness motivation in lahar hazard zones: assessing the adoption of preparedness behaviors among laypeople and response professionals in communities downstream from Mount Baker and Glacier Peak (USA) volcanoes (2017) · cites this paper as Slimak and Dietz 2006
Citations
Cites
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619
New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior
Stern, P. C. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175 · Cited by 8,682
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 · Cited by 5,678
A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697 · Cited by 5,540
The “new environmental paradigm”
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978) · The Journal of Environmental Education · doi:10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875 · Cited by 2,833
Research works printed but not linked: 49
- Armstrong K., 1994, A History of God: The 4,000‐Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00743.x · DOI
- 10.2307/1387582 · DOI
- 10.1177/0013916596283003 · DOI
- Dietz T., 2001, Celebrating Scholarship, 31
- 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444 · DOI
- Dietz T., 2002, Handbook of Environmental Sociology, 562
- 10.1016/1053-5357(95)90022-5 · DOI
- 10.1177/001391659803000402 · DOI
- 10.2307/1242685 · DOI
- Douglas M., 1982, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers
- Dunlap R. E., 2002, Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale, Social Science Quarterly, 56, 425
- 10.2307/1386410 · DOI
- 10.2307/1386580 · DOI
- 10.1080/08941928909380692 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01326.x · DOI
- Guber D. L., 2003, The Grassroots of a Green Revolution: Polling America on the Environment
- 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.04.007 · DOI
- 10.2307/3512527 · DOI
- Jaeger C., 2001, Risk, Uncertainly and Rational Action
- Kalof L., 2002, Race, gender and environmentalism: The atypical values and beliefs of white men, Race, Gender & Class, 9, 1
- Kanagy C. L., 1993, A “greening” of religion? Some evidence from a Pennsylvania sample, Social Science Quarterly, 74, 674
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x · DOI · Paper page
- Kempton W., 1995, Environmental Values in American Culture
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00669.x · DOI
- 10.1111/0272-4332.202019 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00754.x · DOI
- Plough A., 1987, The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 4
- 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 .
- 10.1111/0272-4332.212116 · DOI
- 10.1177/00139160021972676 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x · DOI
- 10.1111/0272-4332.00001 · DOI · Paper page
- Slovic P., 2002, The Perception of Risk
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00439.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x · DOI
- Stern P., 1999, A value‐belief‐norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism, Human Ecology Review, 6, 81
- 10.1177/0013916595276001 · DOI
- 10.1177/0013164498058006008 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x · DOI
- Suzuki D., 1990, Genethics: The Clash Between the New Genetics and Human Values
- US EPA, 2000, Toward Integrated Environmental Decision‐making
- US EPA, 1987, Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems
- Whitfield S.(1998).The public side of the nuclear waste issue: Risk perception and value orientation.Ph.D. Dissertation George Mason University Fairfax VA .
- 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00438.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00438.x · DOI
- Wolkomir M., 1997, Substantive religious belief and environmentalism, Social Science Quarterly, 78, 96
Cited by
Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values
Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N. (2014) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.269 · Cited by 418
Price, J. C., Walker, I. A., & Boschetti, F. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.10.001 · Cited by 154
Understanding consumer purchase of free-of cosmetics: a value-driven TRA approach
Hansen, T., Risborg, M. S., & Steen, C. D. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1397 · Cited by 54
Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B., & Lacey, J. (2015) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.014 · Cited by 49
Corwin, K. A., Brand, B. D., Hubbard, M. L., & Johnston, D. M. (2017) · Journal of Applied Volcanology · doi:10.1186/s13617-017-0055-8 · Cited by 31
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