Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:52:31.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Categorizing Sources of Risk and the Estimated Magnitude of Risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Juan Ignacio Aragonés ,
Emilio Moyano  and
Fernando Talayero
Juan Ignacio Aragonés*
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Emilio Moyano
Affiliation:
Universidad de Talca (Chile)
Fernando Talayero
Affiliation:
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan Ignacio Aragonés, Departamento Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223, Madrid. Phone: +34-913942910 Fax: +34-913943189. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The social perception of risk is considered a multidimensional task, yet little attention has been paid to the cognitive components that organize sources of risk, despite their having been discovered in various research studies. This study attempts to concretely analyze the cultural dimension involved in those processes. In the first phase, we tried to discover to what extent sources of risk are organized into the same categories by people from different countries. In order to do so, two groups of participants were formed: 60 Spanish psychology students and 60 Chilean psychology students classified 43 sources of risk into different groups according to the criteria they found appropriate. The two samples classified risk into identical groups: acts of violence, drugs, electricity and home appliances, household chemicals, chemicals in the environment, public construction projects, transportation, sports, and natural disasters. In a second study, 100 Spanish and 84 Chilean students were asked to evaluate the magnitude of the damage incurred by 17 sources of risk. In both groups, it was observed that the evaluation of damage resulting from each source of risk was affected by its category.

La percepción social del riesgo se considera una tarea multidimensional, sin embargo se ha prestado poca atención a los componentes cognitivos que organizan las fuentes del riesgo, a pesar de que se han descubierto en varios estudios de investigación. Concretamente, este estudio intenta analizar la dimensión cultural implicada en esos procesos. En primer lugar, intentamos descubrir hasta qué punto personas de diferentes países organizan las fuentes de riesgo en las mismas categorías. Para ello, se formaron dos grupos de participantes: 60 estudiantes de psicología españoles y 60 estudiantes de psicología chilenos clasificaron 43 fuentes de riesgo en diferentes grupos según los criterios más apropiados para ellos. Las dos muestras clasificaron el riesgo en grupos idénticos: actos de violencia, drogas, electricidad y electrodomésticos, productos químicos domésticos, productos químicos en el medioambiente, proyectos de construcción públicos, transporte, deportes y desastres naturales. En un segundo estudio, 100 estudiantes españoles y 84 chilenos evaluaron la magnitud del daño provocado por 17 fuentes de riesgo. En ambos grupos, se observó que la categoría afectaba la evaluación del daño resultante de cada fuente de riesgo.

Keywords

riskrisk perceptioncategorizing riskevaluation of riskrisk managementdisastersriesgopercepción de riesgocategorización de riesgoevaluación de riesgomanejo de riesgodesastres
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , May 2008 , pp. 85 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aragonés, J. I., Talayero, F., & Moyano, E. (2003). Percepción del riesgo en contextos culturales diferentes. Revista de Psicología Social, 18, 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P., & Weber, E. U. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach. Risk analysis, 17, 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J., & Breakwell, G. M. (2001). Risk perception and experience: Hazards personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Analysis, 21, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1985). Classifying hazardous events. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fife-Schaw, C., & Rowe, G. (1996). Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: A psychometric study. Risk Analysis, 16, 487–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough: A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risk and benefits. Policy Sciences, 8, 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. C., & Tversky, A. (1984). Representations of perceptions of risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C. J., Brennan, A.Chan, H., & Tao, J. (2003) Disposition toward environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese: validation of a Chinese version of the environmental appraisal inventory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M. G., Florig, H. K., DeKay, M. L., & Fischbeck, P. (2000). Categorizing risks for risk ranking. Risk Analysis, 20, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neto, F., & Mullet, E. (2000). Societal risks as seen by the Portuguese public. European Review of Applied Psychology, 50, 155–163Google Scholar
Puy, A. (1995). Percepción social de los riesgos. Madrid. Fundación Mapfre.Google Scholar
Puy, A., & Aragonés, J. I. (1992). Risk dimensions in the perception of personal risk exposure. In Aristides, M. & Karaletscu, C. (Eds.), Socio-environmental metamorphoses (Proceedings IAPS 12 International Conference, vol. II, pp. 309–314). Salónica: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Puy, A., & Cortés, B. (2000). Percepción social de los riesgos y comportamiento en los desastres. In Aragonés, J. I. & Amérigo, M. (Comps.), Psicología ambiental (2nd ed., pp. 381–402). Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (1987). The perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric aradigm. In Krimsky, S. & Golding, D. (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117–152). Westport, CO: Praeger.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (Ed.). (2000a). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (2000b). Perception of risk from radiation. In Slovic, P. (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 264–274). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1986). The psychometric study of perceptión of risk. In Covello, V. T., Menkes, J., & Mumpower, J. (Eds.), Risk evaluation and management (pp. 3–24). London: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlek, C., & Stallen, P. J. (1981). Judging risk and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 235–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar