IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v1y1981i4p277-287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Components of Risk Ratings

Author

Listed:
  • Detlof von Winterfeldt
  • Richard S. John
  • Katrin Borcherding

Abstract

This study examined what lay people mean when they judge the “risk” of activities that involve the potential for accidental fatalities (e.g., hang gliding, living near a nuclear reactor). A sample of German and American students rated the “overall risk” of 14 such activities and provided 3 fatality estimates: the number of fatalities in an “average year,” the individual yearly fatality probability (or odds), and the number of fatalities in a “disastrous accident.” Subjects' fatality estimates were reasonably accurate and only moderately influenced by attitudes towards nuclear energy. Individual fatality probability correlated most highly with intuitive risk ratings. Disaster estimates correlated positively with risk ratings for those activities that had a low fatality probability and a relatively high disaster potential. Annual average fatality rates did not correlate with risk ratings at all. These findings were interpreted in terms of a two‐dimensional cognitive structure. Subjective notions of risk were determined primarily by the personal chance of death; for some activities, “disaster potential” played a secondary role in shaping risk perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Detlof von Winterfeldt & Richard S. John & Katrin Borcherding, 1981. "Cognitive Components of Risk Ratings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(4), pages 277-287, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:1:y:1981:i:4:p:277-287
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01428.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01428.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01428.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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    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. Fynnwin Prager & Garrett Ryan Beeler Asay & Bumsoo Lee & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2011. "Exploring Reductions in London Underground Passenger Journeys Following the July 2005 Bombings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 773-786, May.
    3. Matt Baucum & Richard S. John & William Burns & Kent E. Portney & Jeryl L. Mumpower, 2021. "Modeling affective and cognitive responses to soft-target terrorism over time," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 227-235, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Geoboo Song, 2014. "Understanding Public Perceptions of Benefits and Risks of Childhood Vaccinations in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 541-555, March.

    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:1:y:1981:i:4:p:277-287. 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.