Perceived risk might be explained by:
Real risk
Although risk is always construed (opgevat), real risk is a useful concept for expertly, or otherwise
well-founded, assessed risk.
risks were perceived, by the average person, in a rather veridical (waarheidsgetrouwe) manner.
The type of risks where realistic perception can be expected appear to be the risks with which people
have some experience, direct or indirect.
Of the three heuristics—representativeness, availability, and anchoring—it was most often argued
that availability(13) was important for understanding risk perception. There is an obvious relationship
here to mass media and the idea that frequent media exposure gives rise to a high level of perceived
risk.(14) This work is no longer regarded as of primary importance for risk perception, however.
The fact that people most often claim to be less subjected to risk than others can be termed risk
denial. Risk denial is a very important feature of risk perception. The phenomenon is related to what
has been called unrealistic optimism.(22)
The more perceived control people have, the more risk denial the people show.
The risk target is of paramount importance in risk studies. This fairly simple fact seems not to be
generally known and many studies still work with nonspecified risk targets. This means that they
probably miss out on the need to understand perceived personal risk, and it introduces some
uncertainty as to what target they actually do study.
THE PSYCHOMETRIC MODEL
Factors of the model:
New–Old, Dread, and Number of Exposed
However, newness is questionable as opposition against nuclear power is almost as lively as in the
70s.
The conclusion drawn about the psychometric model is that, in its traditional three-factor form, it
explains only a rather modest share of the variance of perceived risk. The widespread credibility that
the model apparently enjoys seems to be based largely on the fact that analysis was done on
averages rather than raw data, i.e., correlations reported were based on means and therefore very
high, thereby giving an impression that virtually all of risk perception was accounted for
Real risk
Although risk is always construed (opgevat), real risk is a useful concept for expertly, or otherwise
well-founded, assessed risk.
risks were perceived, by the average person, in a rather veridical (waarheidsgetrouwe) manner.
The type of risks where realistic perception can be expected appear to be the risks with which people
have some experience, direct or indirect.
Of the three heuristics—representativeness, availability, and anchoring—it was most often argued
that availability(13) was important for understanding risk perception. There is an obvious relationship
here to mass media and the idea that frequent media exposure gives rise to a high level of perceived
risk.(14) This work is no longer regarded as of primary importance for risk perception, however.
The fact that people most often claim to be less subjected to risk than others can be termed risk
denial. Risk denial is a very important feature of risk perception. The phenomenon is related to what
has been called unrealistic optimism.(22)
The more perceived control people have, the more risk denial the people show.
The risk target is of paramount importance in risk studies. This fairly simple fact seems not to be
generally known and many studies still work with nonspecified risk targets. This means that they
probably miss out on the need to understand perceived personal risk, and it introduces some
uncertainty as to what target they actually do study.
THE PSYCHOMETRIC MODEL
Factors of the model:
New–Old, Dread, and Number of Exposed
However, newness is questionable as opposition against nuclear power is almost as lively as in the
70s.
The conclusion drawn about the psychometric model is that, in its traditional three-factor form, it
explains only a rather modest share of the variance of perceived risk. The widespread credibility that
the model apparently enjoys seems to be based largely on the fact that analysis was done on
averages rather than raw data, i.e., correlations reported were based on means and therefore very
high, thereby giving an impression that virtually all of risk perception was accounted for
