Literature DB >> 15787770

A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards.

Michael Siegrist1, Carmen Keller, Henk A L Kiers.   

Abstract

The psychometric paradigm has been the most influential model in the field of risk analysis. The "cognitive maps" of hazards produced by the paradigm seem to explain how laypeople perceive the various risks they face. Because most of the studies used aggregated data, analyzed using principal component analysis, it is not known whether the model neglects individual differences in risk perception. There has been much criticism on the fact that few studies have examined individual differences in the cognitive representation of hazards. In order to detect and describe the internal structure of the three-way data, we conducted a three-way component analysis (3MPCA). Data for the present analysis were derived from a mail survey conducted in Switzerland. Participants were asked to judge 9 attributes for 26 hazards. Individual differences in the cognitive representation of hazards were correlated with external variables (e.g., general trust). The results suggest that methods permitting individual differences should be used more frequently and that utilizing different methods could provide greater insight into the cognitive representation of risks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15787770     DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  26 in total

1.  Public perception of blue-algae bloom risk in Hongze Lake of China.

Authors:  Lei Huang; Kai Sun; Jie Ban; Jun Bi
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2010-04-10       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Social Risk Perceptions of Genetically Modified Foods of Engineers in Training: Application of a Comprehensive Risk Model.

Authors:  Sedigheh Ghasemi; Mostafa Ahmadvand; Ezatollah Karami; Ayatollah Karami
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Danish Physicians' Views on the Appropriateness of the Involvement of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Regulatory Decision Making: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Mikkel Lindskov Sachs; Morten Colding-Jørgensen; Per Helboe; Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong; Sven Frøkjaer; Katarina Jelic; Susanne Kaae
Journal:  Pharmaceut Med       Date:  2019-04

4.  Gender differences on osteoporosis health beliefs and related behaviors in non-academic community Chinese.

Authors:  Yin-Ping Zhang; Ru-Yi Xia; Bei Zhang; Feng Zhang; Xin-Shuang Zhao; Lu-Lu Zhang; Hao Li
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2014-06

5.  Integrating new indicators of predictors that shape the public's perception of local extreme temperature in China.

Authors:  Jie Ban; Lei Huang; Chen Chen; Yuming Guo; Mike Z He; Tiantian Li
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 7.963

6.  The effects of gender and age on health related behaviors.

Authors:  Amanda Deeks; Catherine Lombard; Janet Michelmore; Helena Teede
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 7.  Risk perception in gambling: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael Spurrier; Alexander Blaszczynski
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2014-06

8.  Factors influencing acquisition of ecological and exposure information about hazards and risks from contaminated sites.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Greenberg; Michael Gochfeld; Sheila Shukla; Karen Lowrie; Roger Keren
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2007-07-11       Impact factor: 2.513

9.  Risk perception and priority setting for intervention among hepatitis C virus and environmental risks: a cross-sectional survey in the Cairo community.

Authors:  Michaël Schwarzinger; Mostafa K Mohamed; Rita R Gad; Sahar Dewedar; Arnaud Fontanet; Fabrice Carrat; Stéphane Luchini
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  How do the Chinese perceive ecological risk in freshwater lakes?

Authors:  Lei Huang; Yuting Han; Ying Zhou; Heinz Gutscher; Jun Bi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.