The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk: From perception to social representation
Abstract
This paper is concerned with how people make meaning of the risks they face. It explores certain assumptions of the risk perception approaches, which dominate the area. It argues that despite changes currently taking place in the field, such models still focus on static, intrapersonal processes, with many viewing human thinking as analogous to erroneous information processing. In the place of an individual ‘deficit’ focus, the paper proposes a more intersubjective theory of the response to risk. Social representations theory is evaluated and its validity assessed by highlighting empirical work on representations of biotechnological and health risks. The review reveals that the response to risk is a highly social, emotive and symbolic entity. Therefore a theory and methods appropriate to such qualities are proposed, to produce a valid psychology of 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?
Humans tend to feel more comfortable and accepted in groups.
“Humans tend to feel more comfortable and accepted in groups [79].”
From What People Really Think About Safety around Horses: The Relationship between Risk Perception, Values and Safety Behaviours (2020) · cites this paper as [79]
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974) · Health Education Monographs · doi:10.1177/109019817400200403 · Cited by 6,116
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01801.x · Cited by 292
Teasdale, E., Santer, M., Geraghty, A. W. A., Little, P., & Yardley, L. (2014) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-589 · Cited by 109
Chapman, M., Thomas, M., & Thompson, K. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10122222 · Cited by 20
Social representation of ‘music’ in young adults: A cross-cultural study
Manchaiah, V., Zhao, F., Widén, S., Auzenne, J., Beukes, E. W., Ahmadi, T., Tomé, D., Mahadeva, D., Krishna, R., & Germundsson, P. (2017) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992027.2016.1227481 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Joffe, H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-73
- ISSN
- 0144-6665
- 2044-8309
- Cited by
- 426
- 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