Talk:Risk perception

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Gerd Gigerenzer: Out of the frying pan into the fire: Behavioral reactions to terrorist attacks, in: Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, 2006, Abstract [1] -- Cherubino 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

euh yes... but what is the point you want to make?? Don't get me wrong I really like Gigerenzer's work, but how does this fit into the current article. If we want to add risk perception on terrorism we should also notice the recent Fischhoff, Lerner et al (2005) study (sorry typing from home so lack complete ref). Then we might consider an additional terrorism risk perception paragraph, which needs to be written (seems hot so may be feasible). On another line of thought: please do not reference to (limited access) journal papers, as many people may not have access to this source. So the Blackwell-RA link should not go into the article. Arnoutf 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Information presented by trusted sources is given more credence than information from untrusted sources."

Is this sentence at the end even necessary? It's not an actual point - but a restatement of the definition. "Information presented by 'trusted' sources is 'given more credence' actually means 'Information presented by 'sources that are given more credence' [are] 'given more credence.' In other words, this point proves absolutely nothing about the nature of trust, but just defines trust through repetition in the sentence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Although similar it is not exactly the same. It says indeed what you say in your restated definition; however that is not a strict repetition. The difference lies in the fact that the source (e.g. the second hand car sales man) is either trusted or not; his information (e.g. this car belonged to an old lady who never used it for anything much) may be trusted or not. The sentence states that for a trusted source it is more likely the message itself is more likely to be given credence (i.e. the car salesman is trusted, than I believe the car actually belonged to the old lady). While the difference is subtle in the scientific literature this difference is generally used (see articles in Risk Analysis). Arnoutf 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency[edit]

The description of asymmetry of gains and losses is confusing. I suggest that someone check the Prospect Theory entry, which should probably be cross-referenced, and ensure consistency. Thanks.R2SBD (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References?[edit]

As a non-specialist with an interest in these ideas, I thought this article well done. But it needs work to deal with the assumption that all statements are supported by the (very few) references. I've added just a couple of specimen requests for citations, to point out the problem.Testbed (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As a non-specialist with an interest in these ideas," I find it poorly done. The diction is formal, abstract, and vague to such an extent that it needlessly obscures the large amount of research which is being reported. As a result, I find nothing here I can use. Chairease (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risk Perception (history)[edit]

Just a suggestion -

"The Science of Fear" written by Daniel Gardner mentions in chapter 4 that a psychologist named Paul Slovic is one of the "pioneers of risk perception research" (63) His field of research dealt with the opinions and conflicts between professionals and the general public. He also mentions the 18 characteristics of dread that the public consider to be the riskiest or most dangerous things in the world or society.

it may be helpful to give readers a little more of a background into the people behind this interesting research. thank you.

Gardner, D. (2009). The science of fear. Penguin Group: New York.

Hickokc (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

misleading syntax[edit]

The sentence seems to imply that nuclear power is a natural hazard or threat to the environment or health, which is certainly not substantiated in proof and can give people misconceptions. It is especially a poor example in a psychology/statistics article, where the controversy it causes exceeds any arguable usefulness as the current example.

The sentence in question: "The phrase is most commonly used in reference to natural hazards and threats to the environment or health, such as nuclear power."

Suggested revision: "The phrase is most commonly used in reference to natural hazards and threats to the environment or health, such as the varied perceptions of potential safety or danger of nuclear power."

Or just remove the part after the comma or replace it with a better example: "The phrase is most commonly used in reference to natural hazards and threats to the environment or health."

Timothy Crook Graduate Assistant Researcher, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University B.S. Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.99.34 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Psychology?[edit]

It indicates that there are four approaches from psychology: Heuristic and biases, Cognitive Psychology, Psychometric paradigm and Environmental Psychology. I agree with the first three, but not the fourth.

In the corresponding paragraph two references are cited. 1) Helgeson, J., van der Linden, S., and Chabay, I. (2012). "The Role of Knowledge, Learning and Mental Models in Perceptions of Climate Change Related Risks." 2) van der Linden, S. (2015). The Social-Psychological Determinants of Climate Change Risk Perceptions: Towards a Comprehensive Model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112-124.

However, in reviewing these papers anywhere the authors propose an "environmental psychology" model in reference to the perception of risk. A correction is necessary.

--Jaurso (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The others are mechanisms how risks are perceived. The other is more of an interdisciplinary application of a synthesis of these. I moved it to the interdisciplinary section. Think it fits better there (even if all disciplines are psychological subdisciplines). Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]