IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v5y2002i3p191-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

French general practitioners didn't fear the millennium bug

Author

Listed:
  • Esther Lukasiewicz
  • Claude Fischler
  • Michel Setbon
  • Antoine Flahault

Abstract

A survey including 1358 French general practitioners was conducted in December 1999, to assess their own perception of the risks related to the millennium bug. Neither fear nor anxious behaviour was reported. Eighty-three per cent (558/671) didn't think that health risks were to be feared, as the millennium approached.

Suggested Citation

  • Esther Lukasiewicz & Claude Fischler & Michel Setbon & Antoine Flahault, 2002. "French general practitioners didn't fear the millennium bug," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 191-194, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:5:y:2002:i:3:p:191-194
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870110073738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870110073738
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870110073738?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Woloshin & Lisa M. Schwartz & Stephanie Byram & Baruch Fischhoff & H. Gilbert Welch, 2000. "A New Scale for Assessing Perceptions of Chance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 298-307, July.
    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. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    2. Michael Yu & Tomás Lejarraga & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2166-2181, December.
    3. Carman, K.G. & Kooreman, P., 2010. "Flu Shots, Mammogram, and the Perception of Probabilities," Other publications TiSEM fba970b8-6fc7-449b-acf9-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F Manski & Francesca Molinari, 2022. "Precise or Imprecise Probabilities? Evidence from Survey Response Related to Late-Onset Dementia," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 187-221.
    5. Marilyn M. Schapira & Susan L. Davids & Timothy L. McAuliffe & Ann B. Nattinger, 2004. "Agreement Between Scales in the Measurement of Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 665-673, June.
    6. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2009. "Effect of Risk Communication Formats on Risk Perception Depending on Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 483-490, July.
    7. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    8. W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jantsje M. Mol & Peter J. Robinson & Juan Zhang & Jeffrey Czajkowski, 2022. "Individual hurricane evacuation intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights for risk communication and emergency management policies," 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. 111(1), pages 507-522, March.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:4:p:365-385 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Katherine G. Carman, 2018. "Measuring Subjective Probabilities: The Effect of Response Mode on the Use of Focal Responses, Validity, and Respondents’ Evaluations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2128-2143, October.
    11. Cara L. Cuite & Neil D. Weinstein & Karen Emmons & Graham Colditz, 2008. "A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(3), pages 377-384, May.
    12. Katherine Carman & Peter Kooreman, 2014. "Probability perceptions and preventive health care," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 43-71, August.
    13. Baruch Fischhoff & Wändi Bruine De Bruin & Wendy Perrin & Julie Downs, 2004. "Travel Risks in a Time of Terror: Judgments and Choices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1301-1309, October.
    14. Niels Haase & Frank Renkewitz & Cornelia Betsch, 2013. "The Measurement of Subjective Probability: Evaluating the Sensitivity and Accuracy of Various Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1812-1828, October.
    15. W.J. Wouter Botzen & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 365-385, July.
    16. Rebecca Hess & Vivianne H.M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "How do people perceive graphical risk communication? The role of subjective numeracy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 47-61, January.
    17. Baruch Fischhoff & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Dana Rose Garfin & E. Alison Holman & Roxane Cohen Silver, 2018. "Public Understanding of Ebola Risks: Mastering an Unfamiliar Threat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 71-83, January.
    18. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Vivianne Visschers, 2009. "Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1255-1264, September.

    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:5:y:2002:i:3:p:191-194. 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: 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.