IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v9y1989i2p225-242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Technology

Author

Listed:
  • Gerald T. Gardner
  • Leroy C. Gould

Abstract

This study attempted to verify and extend previous research on people's perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology and their judgments concerning the acceptability of technology safety regulations. The study addressed several limitations of prior work, in that: (1) it was the first “expressed‐preference” study to collect data from large, representative samples of Americans; (2) the research design made “person,” rather than “technology,” the unit of statistical analysis; and (3) the study employed an expanded set of independent variables, including three qualitative benefit characteristics. The results confirmed several major conclusions of prior expressed‐preference research, the most important being that members of the public tend to define “risks,”“benefits,” and “acceptability” in a complex, multidimensional manner; and that their definitions differ significantly from those used by professional risk‐managers and other technical experts in quantitative assessments of risk and acceptability. The results also indicated that people's stances toward technology regulation tend to cut across traditional sociodemographic lines.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerald T. Gardner & Leroy C. Gould, 1989. "Public Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 225-242, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:9:y:1989:i:2:p:225-242
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb01243.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb01243.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb01243.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christina M. Harding & J. Richard Eiser, 1984. "Characterising the Perceived Risks and Benefits of Some Health Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 131-141, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Susan G. Hadden, 1991. "Public Perception of Hazardous Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 47-57, March.
    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. Michaela Gummerum & Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan J. Rolison, 2014. "Offenders’ Risk‐Taking Attitude Inside and Outside the Prison Walls," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1870-1881, October.
    5. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    6. Mika Kivimäki & Raija Kalimo, 1993. "Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Personnel: A Survey," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 421-424, August.
    7. David R. Holtgrave & Elke U. Weber, 1993. "Dimensions of Risk Perception for Financial and Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(5), pages 553-558, October.
    8. Ian H. Langford & Claire Marris & Annë‐Lise McDonald & Harvey Goldstein & Jon Rasbash & Tim O'Riordan, 1999. "Simultaneous Analysis of Individual and Aggregate Responses in Psychometric Data Using Multilevel Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 675-683, August.
    9. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    10. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    11. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez, 2008. "Participant-focused analysis: explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 735-753, September.
    12. Claire Marris & Ian Langford & Thomas Saunderson & Timothy O'Riordan, 1997. "Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 303-312, June.
    13. George Halkos & Argyro Zisiadou, 2020. "An Overview of the Technological Environmental Hazards over the Last Century," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 411-428, July.
    14. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    15. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    16. Kathleen L. Purvis‐Roberts & Cynthia A. Werner & Irene Frank, 2007. "Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 291-302, April.
    17. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt‐Marie Drottz‐Sjöberg, 1991. "Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 607-618, December.
    18. David P. French & Emma L. Gayton & Jessica Burton & Margaret Thorogood & Theresa M. Marteau, 2002. "Measuring Perceptions of Synergistic Circulatory Disease Risk Due to Smoking and the Oral Contraceptive Pill," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1139-1151, December.
    19. Lennart Sjöberg, 2002. "Are Received Risk Perception Models Alive and Well?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 665-669, August.

    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Harry Otway, 1985. "Multidimensional Criteria for Technology Acceptability: A Response to Bernard L. Cohen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(4), pages 271-273, December.
    3. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    4. Paul Slovic, 1986. "Informing and Educating the Public About Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 403-415, December.
    5. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    6. Dirk Grasmück & Roland W. Scholz, 2005. "Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High‐Exposed and Low‐Exposed Inhabitants: The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concerns," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 611-622, June.
    7. Grant, Kevin & Edgar, David & Sukumar, Arun & Meyer, Martin, 2014. "‘Risky business’: Perceptions of e-business risk by UK small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 99-122.
    8. Ian H. Langford & Claire Marris & Annë‐Lise McDonald & Harvey Goldstein & Jon Rasbash & Tim O'Riordan, 1999. "Simultaneous Analysis of Individual and Aggregate Responses in Psychometric Data Using Multilevel Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 675-683, August.
    9. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez, 2008. "Participant-focused analysis: explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 735-753, September.
    10. Nancy Nighswonger Kraus & Paul Slovic, 1988. "Taxonomic Analysis of Perceived Risk: Modeling Individual and Group Perceptions Within Homogeneous Hazard Domains," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 435-455, September.
    11. Bruce E. Tonn & Cheryl B. Travis & Richard T. Goeltz & Raymond H. Phillippi, 1990. "Knowledge‐Based Representations of Risk Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 169-184, March.
    12. Claire Marris & Ian Langford & Thomas Saunderson & Timothy O'Riordan, 1997. "Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 303-312, June.
    13. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    14. Ranjit Singh & Jayashree Bhattacharjee, 2019. "Measuring Equity Share Related Risk Perception of Investors in Economically Backward Regions," Risks, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-20, January.

    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:9:y:1989:i:2:p:225-242. 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: 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.