The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Perception of Risk
Abstract
Decision Processes, Rationality and Adjustment to Natural Hazards * Cognitive Processes and Societal Risk Taking * Preference for Insuring Against Probable Small Losses: Insurance Implications * Accident Probabilities and Seat Belt Usage: A Psychological Perspective * How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits * Rating the Risks * Weighing the Risks: Which Risks are Acceptable? * Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk * Response Mode, Framing and Information-processing Effects in Risk Assessment * The Nature of Technological Hazard * Informing and Educating the Public about Risk * Perception of Risk from Automobile Safety Defects * Perception of Risk * The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework * The Perception and Management of Therapeutic Risk * Perception of Risk from Radiation * Perceived Risk, Trust and the Politics of Nuclear Waste * Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks * Perceived Risk, Trust and Democracy * Adolescent Health-threatening and Health-enhancing Behaviors: A Study of Word Association and Imagery * Technological Stigma * Probability, Danger and Coercion: A Study of Risk Perception and Decision-making in Mental Health Law * Do Adolescent Smokers Know the Risks? * Insensitivity to the Value of a Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing * Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield * The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits*
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0016755 · Cited by 2,443
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011) · The Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x · Cited by 2,340
Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 · Cited by 1,686
Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x · Cited by 1,443
Self-citationDeterminants of Risk: Exposure and Vulnerability
Cardona, O.-D., van Aalst, M. K., Birkmann, J., Fordham, M., McGregor, G., Perez, R., Pulwarty, R. S., Schipper, E. L. F., Sinh, B. T., Décamps, H., et al. (2012) · Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139177245.005 · Cited by 1,007
Metadata
- Authors
- Slovic, P.
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2016-10-06
- OpenAlex
- W2144677027
- Cited by
- 2,217
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 111.20
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The Perception of Risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9781315661773
- The paper
- Slovic, P. (2016). The Perception of Risk. Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661773
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.