Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Risk Perception Survey (Psychometric Paradigm)/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

Risk Perception Survey (Psychometric Paradigm)

The risk perception survey, or psychometric paradigm, measures how laypeople intuitively judge the riskiness of hazards by having respondents rate many activities and technologies on a battery of qualitative risk characteristics. Baruch Fischhoff, Paul Slovic, and colleagues introduced the approach in their 1978 study 'How Safe Is Safe Enough?', and Slovic's 1987 Science synthesis 'Perception of Risk' established it as the dominant empirical framework for studying risk attitudes. The central finding is that perceived risk is highly predictable from a handful of qualities — above all how dreaded and how unknown a hazard feels — rather than from expert estimates of expected fatalities. Factor analysis of the characteristic ratings collapses the many attributes into a low-dimensional cognitive map, typically a 'dread' and an 'unknown risk' axis, in which each hazard occupies a position. Where a hazard falls in this space predicts public concern, desired regulation, and acceptance far better than its statistical death toll. The method gave environmental and technological controversy a measurable psychological structure and remains foundational to risk communication.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Risk Perception Survey (Slovic's Psychometric Paradigm of Perceived Risk)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · latent-structure / environmental-sociology
  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. · DOI 10.1126/science.3563507
  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127-152. · DOI 10.1007/BF00143739
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

Used in the same domainClimate Vulnerability Indexmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyCultural Theory of Risk (Grid-Group Worldview Measurement)machine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyNew Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP)machine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

2 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto