Risk perception concepts

To further increase the potential for successful introduction of the risk perception concept and tool, review... 

Risk perceptions refer to a consumer s estimate of how likely they will be exposed to the content of the risk ( I have a 1 in 100,000 chance of contracting a BSE-related disease if I eat beef ). Risk attitude reflects a consumer s general predisposition to risk in a consistent way. It is important to emphasize that risk attitude and risk perception are two different concepts. Whereas risk attitude deals with a consumer s interpretation of the content of the risk and how much he or she dislikes it, risk perception deals with a consumer s interpretation of the likelihood of being exposed to the content of the risk. 

One of the main concerns of this paper is to assess how risk perceptions can be incorporated into the policy arena, including the responses from different actors and stakeholders. Following Renn (2008), we state that the conceptions of risk and the actions taken by different groups must be treated symmetrically and included in risk governance. 

First, a fundamental presupposition is underlying the psychometric studies of risk perception the idea that risk perception in itself is quantifiable. Even if other considerations are taken into accoimt - such as the qualitative characteristics of risks - the researchers of the University of Oregon suppose that all these data - including the qualitative characteristics - may be represented by a set of numerical values. This quantified conception of risk perception reveals a reductionist approach to risk, unable to accoimt for a polythetic concept of risk such as the one advocated... 

The new-terrorism discourse is a discourse that fits very well in modern mass media because it presents terrorism as a societal, catastrophic risk. After 9/11 the terrorism risk is interpreted as a risk for us . Results from risk perception research shows that people tends to highly rate risks that can harm themselves or their family are perceived to be caused by something out of the person s control have large consequences and are threats to societies rather than individuals (Sjoberg, 2004). Consequently, the implications of the new terrorism-discourse raise pubHc fear and powerlessness. The society must then be structured in a way that reduces availability, opeimess and pubHc access. Crenshaw (2008) asks why the idea of the new terrorism is so attractive. Her answer is that one reason may be that the conception of the new terrorism supports the case for major poHtical change. 

In this chapter we have discussed the rationale for the need for change from a traditional approach to safety management at work to a behaviour-based approach. In the following chapter we discuss in more depth some of the problems involved in using the concepts of attitude and personality as an explanation of behaviour and introduce the notion of risk perception. In Chapter 3 we move on to present the theoretical background to the behavioural approach, before describing its application to safety in Chapter 4. 

Much research has been conducted in trying to nnderstand people s concept of risk. What makes one individual (or country) take more risks Why do people feel that the risk of dying in a car crash is lower than the risk of flying in a commercial jetliner Slovic et al. (1979) have defined a nnmber of factors that affect the way people perceive a risk. These factors have already become standard bearers for risk perception. Not everyone may agree with the risk perception factors. For some, involuntary risks are not important for others, they may carry much weight. 

A risk perception tool has been used to develop an understanding of operational risk for a number of years. The US military has adopted the concept to address risk in its daily operations and activities. The model recommends that personal as well as operational risk as identified by leadership be part of the overall training in risk concepts (Operational Risk Management (ORM) Fundamentals, 2010 Operational Risk Management, Marine, 2002). 

But when it comes to the domain of public or the laypersons , the way they perceive risk may not necessarily bounded by any of the above definitions. That is when one needs to consider the concept of risk perception. 

A discussion of risk perception would not be complete without examining one of the most controversial concepts in the field of safety. In recent years, it has been given different labels, including risk homeostasis, risk or danger compensation, risk-offsetting behavior, and perverse compensation. Whatever the name, the basic idea is quite simple and straightforward. 

Of every 5000 medicines tested, on average, only 5 are tested in clinical trials and only 1 of those is approved for patient use." Very, very few biotech concepts yield commercial returns. Consequently, investors are hypersensitive to events which appear to shift the odds of success one way or the other. What drives biotech stock prices up or down is not changes in timelines, but rather changes in perceptions of the risk of failure. 

Unfortunately, the public perception of such concepts as safety, risk, hazard, tolerance, toxicity, etc. are notoriously inconsistent in that the... 

Several key issues in risk assessment of chemical mixtures were identified, that is, exposure assessment of mixtures (e.g., mixture fate and sequential exposure), the concept of sufficient similarity, mixture interactions, QSARs, uncertainty assessment, and the perception of mixture risks. Resolving these key issues will significantly improve risk assessment of chemical mixtures (see next section). 

In both human and ecological risk assessment, there is considerable scientific latitude to develop novel methods (e.g., those that exist in only one of the subdisciplines could be useful in the other one) and to refine approaches (e.g., by considering complex reaction networks and more specific attention for modes of action). The refinements are needed to improve the scientific evidence that is available for underpinning risk assessments. Several key issues in risk assessment of chemical mixtures were identified, that is, exposure assessment of mixtures (e.g., mixture fate and sequential exposure), the concept of sufficient similarity (requires clear criteria), mixture interactions, QSARs, uncertainty assessment, and the perception of mixture risks. Resolving these key issues will significantly improve risk assessment of chemical mixtures. 

There was no perception of reactive intermediates in the mind of most German chemists. The only thing that mattered in a reaction was the starting material and the product. In line with this, the carbocation concept of Meerwein had not yet found general acceptance. To postulate such a novel reactive intermediate back in those days could easily have put an academic career at risk. 

---