IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v17y1997i3p303-312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Claire Marris
  • Ian Langford
  • Thomas Saunderson
  • Timothy O'Riordan

Abstract

The “psychometric paradigm” developed by Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein was a landmark in research about public attitudes toward risks. One problem with this work, however, was that (at least initially) it did not attempt to distinguish between individuals or groups of people, except “experts” vs. “lay people.” This paradigm produced a “cognitive map” of hazards, and the assumption seemed to be that the characteristics identified were inherent attributes of risk. This paper examines the validity of this assumption. A questionnaire survey similar to those designed by Slovic et al. was conducted, but the data were analyzed at both the aggregate level, using mean scores, and at the level of individuals (N= 131 Norwich residents). The results reported here demonstrate that (1) individuals vary in their perception of the same risk issue; (2) individuals vary in their rating of the same risk characteristics on the same risk issue; and (3) some of the strong intercorrelations observed between risk characteristics at the aggregate level are not supported when the same data are analysed at the level of individuals. Despite these findings, the relationship between risk characteristics and risk perceptions inferred by the psychometric paradigm did hold true at the level of individuals, for most—but not all—of the characteristics. In particular, the relationship between “lack of knowledge to those exposed” and risk perceptions appears to be a complex one, a finding which has important implications for risk communication strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:17:y:1997:i:3:p:303-312
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.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. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Iddo K. Wernick, 1996. "Better Risk Information for Communities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(5), pages 601-603, October.
    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. Jingguo Wang & Nan Xiao & H. Raghav Rao, 2015. "Research Note—An Exploration of Risk Characteristics of Information Security Threats and Related Public Information Search Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 619-633, September.
    2. Ho, Shirley S. & Looi, Jiemin & Chuah, Agnes S.F. & Leong, Alisius D. & Pang, Natalie, 2018. "“I can live with nuclear energy if…”: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 436-447.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Koehler, Johanna & Thomson, Patrick & Goodall, Susanna & Katuva, Jacob & Hope, Rob, 2021. "Institutional pluralism and water user behavior in rural Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    6. Nurit Carmi & Iris Alkaher, 2019. "Risk Literacy and Environmental Education: Does Exposure to Academic Environmental Education Make a Difference in How Students Perceive Ecological Risks and Evaluate Their Risk Severity?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    8. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing Three Causal Models of Risk Perception, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Energy Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2019. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing the Cross-Effect of Risk Perception and Cyberspace Factors on Online/Offline Opposition to Nuclear Energy in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier, 2022. "Baromètre de la confiance des consommateurs québécois à l’égard des aliments -1 re édition," CIRANO Project Reports 2020rp-39, CIRANO.
    10. Shi-jie Jiang & Feiyun Xiang & Iris Yang, 2023. "Effect of Prevention Focus on the Relationships Among Driving Accident History, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Automobile Insurance Coverage Decisions," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Yingyu Zhang & Hui Luan & Wei Shao & Yingjun Xu, 2016. "Managerial risk preference and its influencing factors: analysis of large state-owned enterprises management personnel in China," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 135-158, August.
    15. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    16. Claya, Pablo Mac & Accursia, Federico M. & Harmath, Pedro, 2022. "Surviving as an Argentine Farmer: Factors that Influence Risk Management Strategies," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 13(04), December.
    17. Laura K. Siebeneck & Thomas J. Cova, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return‐Entry Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1468-1480, September.
    18. Paul Slovic, 1986. "Informing and Educating the Public About Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 403-415, December.
    19. Andy S. L. Tan & Susan Mello & Ashley Sanders‐Jackson & Cabral A. Bigman, 2017. "Knowledge about Chemicals in e‐Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1170-1180, June.
    20. Noland, Robert B & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-79, 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:17:y:1997:i:3:p:303-312. 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.