IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v21y2001i2p341-356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?

Author

Listed:
  • Gene Rowe
  • George Wright

Abstract

This article evaluates the nine empirical studies that have been conducted on expert versus lay judgments of risk. Contrary to received wisdom, this study finds that there is little empirical evidence for the propositions (1) that experts judge risk differently from members of the public or (2) that experts are more veridical in their risk assessments. Methodological weaknesses in the early research are documented, and it is shown that the results of more recent studies are confounded by social and demographic factors that have been found to correlate with judgments of risk. Using a task‐analysis taxonomy, a template is provided for the documentation of future studies of expert–lay differences/similarities that will facilitate analytic comparison.

Suggested Citation

  • Gene Rowe & George Wright, 2001. "Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 341-356, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:2:p:341-356
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.212116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.212116
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.212116?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
    ---><---

    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:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:2:p:341-356. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.