IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i12p2166-2181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Yu
  • Tomás Lejarraga
  • Cleotilde Gonzalez

Abstract

Reacting to an emergency requires quick decisions under stressful and dynamic conditions. To react effectively, responders need to know the right actions to take given the risks posed by the emergency. While existing research on risk scales focuses primarily on decision making in static environments with known risks, these scales may be inappropriate for conditions where the decision maker's time and mental resources are limited and may be infeasible if the actual risk probabilities are unknown. In this article, we propose a method to develop context‐specific, scenario‐based risk scales designed for emergency response training. Emergency scenarios are used as scale points, reducing our dependence on known probabilities; these are drawn from the targeted emergency context, reducing the mental resources required to interpret the scale. The scale is developed by asking trainers/trainees to rank order a range of risk scenarios and then aggregating these orderings using a Kemeny ranking. We propose measures to assess this aggregated scale's internal consistency, reliability, and validity, and we discuss how to use the scale effectively. We demonstrate our process by developing a risk scale for subsurface coal mine emergencies and test the reliability of the scale by repeating the process, with some methodological variations, several months later.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:12:p:2166-2181
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01837.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01837.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01837.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. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Perception of Risks From Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk‐Communication Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 815-828, October.
    3. Nancy A. Connelly & Barbara A. Knuth, 1998. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Examining Target Audience Perceptions About Four Presentation Formats for Fish Consumption Health Advisory Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 649-659, October.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Marilyn M. Schapira & Ann B. Nattinger & Colleen A. McHorney, 2001. "Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(6), pages 459-467, December.
    7. Paul Slovic & Nancy Kraus & Vincent T. Covello, 1990. "What Should We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 389-392, September.
    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. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Heather Lazrus & Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Ann Bostrom, 2016. "“Know What to Do If You Encounter a Flash Flood”: Mental Models Analysis for Improving Flash Flood Risk Communication and Public Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 411-427, February.
    7. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. de Vries, 2007. "An Associative Approach to Risk Perception: Measuring the Effects of Risk Communications Directly and Indirectly>1?tpb=-6pt?>," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 371-383, April.
    8. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Communicating Air Quality Information: Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Formats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 91-103, February.
    9. 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.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 482-493.
    12. H. Henry Cao & Bing Han & David Hirshleifer & Harold H. Zhang, 2011. "Fear of the Unknown: Familiarity and Economic Decisions," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 15(1), pages 173-206.
    13. de Meza, David & Pathania, Vikram, 2021. "Is the Second-Cheapest Wine a Rip-Off? Economics vs. Psychology in Product-Line Pricing," Working Papers 321852, American Association of Wine Economists.
    14. Jonathan C. Pettibone, 2012. "Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 513-523, July.
    15. Chorus, Caspar & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Daniel, Aemiro Melkamu & Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Sobhani, Anae & Szép, Teodóra, 2021. "Obfuscation maximization-based decision-making: Theory, methodology and first empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 28-44.
    16. Chorus, Caspar G., 2014. "Benefit of adding an alternative to one׳s choice set: A regret minimization perspective," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 49-59.
    17. Nicola Gennaioli & Alberto Martin & Stefano Rossi, 2014. "Sovereign Default, Domestic Banks, and Financial Institutions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(2), pages 819-866, April.
    18. Ekström, Mathias, 2018. "The (un)compromise effect," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 10/2018, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics, revised 16 May 2018.
    19. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. Ivo Vlaev & Nick Chater & Neil Stewart, 2007. "Relativistic financial decisions: Context effects on retirement saving and investment risk preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 292-311, October.
    21. Chang, Shin-Shin & Chang, Chung-Chau & Liao, Yen-Yi, 2015. "A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 168-182.

    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:32:y:2012:i:12:p:2166-2181. 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.