IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v13y2010i2p231-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values

Author

Listed:
  • Sven Ove Hansson

Abstract

Perhaps the most fundamental divide in risk research is that between proponents of two contradictory concepts of risk. Some take risk as objectively given and determined by physical facts, whereas others see risk as a social construction that is independent of physical facts. These two views are scrutinized, and it is concluded that neither is tenable. Risk is both fact-laden and value-laden, and it contains both objective and subjective components. It is argued that both the objectivist and the subjectivist view of risk are failed attempts to rid a complex concept of much of its complexity. The real challenge is to identify the various types of factual and valuational components inherent in statements about risk and to understand how they are combined. The two oversimplifications both stand in the way of a more sophisticated analysis of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Ove Hansson, 2010. "Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 231-238, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:13:y:2010:i:2:p:231-238
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870903126226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870903126226
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870903126226?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christian Scheve & Markus Lange, 2023. "Risk entanglement and the social relationality of risk," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Feng, Zhongxiang & Gao, Ya & Zhu, Dianchen & Chan, Ho-Yin & Zhao, Mingming & Xue, Rui, 2024. "Impact of risk perception and trust in autonomous vehicles on pedestrian crossing decision: Navigating the social-technological intersection with the ICLV model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 71-86.
    3. Sarah Alexander & Ezana Atsbeha & Selam Negatu & Kristen Kirksey & Dominique Brossard & Elizabeth Holzer & Paul Block, 2020. "Development of an interdisciplinary, multi-method approach to seasonal climate forecast communication at the local scale," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2021-2042, October.
    4. Bishu, Kinfe & O'Reilly, Seamus & Lahiff, Edward & Steiner, Bodo, 2016. "Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies," MPRA Paper 74954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    6. Diaconu Mihaela & Du?u Amalia Viorica, 2022. "The Risk Mapping Using Cluster Analysis Within Pandemic Context: Empirical Evidence From Romania," Management Strategies Journal, Constantin Brancoveanu University, vol. 56(2), pages 70-78.
    7. Carol Nash, 2021. "Improving Mentorship and Supervision during COVID-19 to Reduce Graduate Student Anxiety and Depression Aided by an Online Commercial Platform Narrative Research Group," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Max Boholm & Niklas Möller & Sven Ove Hansson, 2016. "The Concepts of Risk, Safety, and Security: Applications in Everyday Language," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 320-338, February.
    9. Haitham Nobanee & Maryam Alhajjar & Mohammed Ahmed Alkaabi & Majed Musabah Almemari & Mohamed Abdulla Alhassani & Naema Khamis Alkaabi & Saeed Abdulla Alshamsi & Hanan Hamed AlBlooshi, 2021. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Objective and Subjective Risk," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:13:y:2010:i:2:p:231-238. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.