IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cta/jcppxx/1192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biases and influencing factors in risk perception

Author

Listed:
  • Virginia ANDREI Andrei

Abstract

The aims of this paper are to analyze the causes and implications of risk perceptions and to review the theories developed nowadays. One of the main concepts outlined in risk psychology literature is cognitive biases, which refers to cognitive shortcuts used subconsciously by every individual in order to understand a hazardous situation and act upon it. The qualitative research for this study has identified various ways to process risks and various associations made by respondents when talking about the risks perceived in their lives. Some of the answers have been gathered in this paper, which tries to identify connections with well-known biases in risk psychology. Research findings will help in the elaboration of the author’s PhD thesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginia ANDREI Andrei, 2019. "Biases and influencing factors in risk perception," Journal of Community Positive Practices, Catalactica NGO, issue 1, pages 10-17.
    • Handle: RePEc:cta:jcppxx:1192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jppc.ro/index.php/jppc/article/download/103/88
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    3. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    4. Aubel Martin & Pikturniene Indre & Joye Yannick, 2022. "Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Response to Service Robot Anthropomorphism in Banking," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 26-42, June.
    5. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    6. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:130-134 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Henry H. Willis & H. Keith Florig, 2002. "Potential Exposures and Risks from Beryllium‐Containing Products," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 1019-1033, October.
    9. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    10. De Silva, Muthu & Rossi, Federica & Yip, Nick K.T. & Rosli, Ainurul, 2021. "Does affective evaluation matter for the success of university-industry collaborations? A sentiment analysis of university-industry collaborative project reports," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    11. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Yubin Ding & Junling Xu & Sisi Huang & Peipei Li & Cuizhen Lu & Shenghua Xie, 2020. "Risk Perception and Depression in Public Health Crises: Evidence from the COVID-19 Crisis in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-17, August.
    13. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    14. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    15. Bachmann, Kremena & Meyer, Julia & Krauss, Annette, 2024. "Investment motives and performance expectations of impact investors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    16. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    17. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    18. Mannberg, Andréa, 2012. "Risk and rationalization—The role of affect and cognitive dissonance for sexual risk taking," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1325-1337.
    19. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.
    20. Mumuni Abu & Samuel Nii Ardey Codjoe, 2018. "Experience and Future Perceived Risk of Floods and Diarrheal Disease in Urban Poor Communities in Accra, Ghana," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-16, December.
    21. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cta:jcppxx:1192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ene Mihai (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.jppc.ro/?lang=en .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.