IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v9y1989i2p215-223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception and Social Acceptability of Technologies: The French Case

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Bastide
  • Jean‐Paul Moatti
  • Jean‐Pierre Pages
  • Francis Fagnani

Abstract

The authors present results of a February 1987 survey on judged frequency of mortality causes and risk perception of technologies in a representative sample of the French population. Although the French context is very different, and the impact of public controversies have been very limited on technological choices such as the nuclear energy program, strong similarities in risk perception of technologies are observed with results from U.S. surveys. Results, which could be worthwhile for other countries, suggest that risk perception is influenced by two different types of components. The first influence is the global feeling of “security” that society procures to its members. Such feeling depends on the individual's socioeconomic status, subjective state of health, and personal discomfort in daily life, and explains individual aversion to risk independently of the mortality causes or technologies involved. The second influence is the degree of perceived social legitimization of the activities involving risks. Risks of medical and transportation activities are strongly opposed to illegitimate risky behaviors (smoking, drugs, alcohol); technologies which have been an object of public debate (nuclear plants, the chemical industry, lead in gasoline) have an intermediate position reflecting the remaining uncertainties of public opinion about their risk–benefit balancing. Tentative conclusions for risk communication are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Bastide & Jean‐Paul Moatti & Jean‐Pierre Pages & Francis Fagnani, 1989. "Risk Perception and Social Acceptability of Technologies: The French Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 215-223, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:9:y:1989:i:2:p:215-223
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb01242.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb01242.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1989.tb01242.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. Donald MacGregor & Paul Slovic, 1986. "Perceived Acceptability of Risk Analysis as a Decision‐Making Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 245-256, June.
    2. Jeanne Fagnani & Jean-Paul Moatti, 1984. "The politics of french nuclear development," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(2), pages 264-275.
    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 & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    2. John Eyles & S. Martin Taylor & Jamie Baxter & Doug Sider & Dennis Willms, 1993. "The Social Construction of Risk in a Rural Community: Responses of Local Residents to the 1990 Hagersville (Ontario) Tire Fire," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, June.
    3. Oene Wiegman & Jan M. Gutteling & Bernard Cadet, 1995. "Perception of Nuclear Energy and Coal in France and the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 513-521, August.
    4. Robert N. Bontempo & William P. Bottom & Elke U. Weber, 1997. "Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: A Model‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 479-488, August.
    5. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    6. C. Karpowicz‐Lazreg & E. Mullet, 1993. "Societal Risk as Seen by the French Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 253-258, June.
    7. Konstantinos Drakos & Catherine Mueller, 2014. "On the Determinants of Terrorism Risk Concern in Europe," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 291-310, June.
    8. Wang, Lingling & Watanabe, Tsunemi, 2019. "Effects of environmental policy on public risk perceptions of haze in Tianjin City: A difference-in-differences analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 199-212.
    9. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2003. "Risk Perception in a Developing Country: The Case of Chile," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1271-1285, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.
    12. Holger Schütz & Peter M. Wiedemann, 1998. "Judgments of Personal and Environmental Risks of Consumer Products—Do they Differ?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 119-129, February.

    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. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.

    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:215-223. 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.