Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk

  • Paul Slovic
  • Baruch Fischhoff
  • Sarah Lichtenstein
Part of the General Motors Research Laboratories book series (RLSS)


Subjective judgments, whether by experts or lay people, are a major component in any risk assessment. If such judgments are faulty, efforts at public and environmental protection are likely to be misdirected. The present paper begins with an analysis of biases exhibited by lay people and experts when they make judgments about risk. Next, the similarities and differences between lay and expert evaluations are examined in the context of a specific set of activities and technologies. Finally, some special issues are discussed, including the difficulty of reconciling divergent opinions about risk, the possible irrelevance of voluntariness as a determinant of acceptable risk, the importance of catastrophic potential in determing perceptions and triggering social conflict, and the need to facilitate public participation in the management of hazards.


Risk Perception Fault Tree Acceptable Risk Fire Fighting Risk Characteristic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185:1124–1131, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 4: 207–232, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman and B. Combs, “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4: 551–578, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Combs and P. Slovic, “Causes of Death: Biased Newspaper Coverage and Biased Judgments,” Journalism Quarterly, in press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, “Fault Trees: Sensitivity of Estimated Failure Probabilities to Problem Representation,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4: 342–355, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, “Knowing With Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3: 552–564, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff and L. D. Phillips, “Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art,” Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs, H. Jungermann and G. de Zeeuw, eds., D. Reidel, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 1977.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Hynes and E. VanMarcke, “Reliability of Embankment Performance Prediction,” Proceedings of the ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division Specialty Conference, University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Fischhoff, “Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” Policy Sciences, 8:177–202, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. W. Kates, “Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management,” Research Paper 78, Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1962.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Borch, The Economics of Uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1968.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eugene Register-Guard, “Doubts Linger on Cyclamate Risks,” January 14, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. E. David, “One-Armed Scientists?” Science, 189: 891, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. Svenson, “Are We All Among the Better Drivers?” Unpublished report, Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Rethans, “An Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Product Hazards,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. D. Weinstein, “It Won’t Happen to Me: Cognitive and Motivational Sources of Unrealistic Optimism,” Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff and S. Lichtenstein, “Accident Probabilities and Seat Belt Usage: A Psychological Perspective,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10: 281–285, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Ross, “The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings,” Advances in Social Psychology, L. Berkowitz, ed., Academic Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Nelkin, “The Role of Experts on a Nuclear Siting Controversy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 30: 29–36, 1974.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read and B. Combs, “How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits,” Policy Sciences, 8:127–152, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff and S. Lichtenstein, “Expressed Preferences,” Decision Research Report 80-1, Eugene, Oregon, 1980.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein and B. Fischhoff, “Images of Disaster: Perception and Acceptance of Risks from Nuclear Power,” Energy Risk Management, G. Goodman and W. D. Rowe, eds., Academic Press, London, in press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, WASH 1400 (NUREG-75/014), Washington, D.C., October 1975.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. Lowrance, Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety, William Kaufmann Co., Los Altos, California, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Starr, “Social Benefit vs. Technological Risk,” Science, 165:1232–1238, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Council for Science and Society, The Acceptability of Risks, London, 1977.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. H. Kinchin, “Assessment of Hazards in Engineering Work,” Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part I 64: 431–438, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    W. D. Rowe, The Anatomy of Risk, John Wiley, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    L. Lave, “Risk, Safety, and the Role of Government,” Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making, The National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C., 96-108, 1972.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. Wilson, “The Costs of Safety,” New Scientist, 68: 274–275, 1975.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Ferreira and L. Slesin, Observations on the Social Impact of Large Accidents, Technical Report No. 122, Operations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 1976.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, “Knowing What You Want: Measuring Labile Values,” Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior, T. Wallsten, ed., Hillsdale, N. J., Erlbaum, in press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. L. Keeney, “Evaluation Involving Potential Fatalities,” Unpublished report, Woodward Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Slovic
    • 1
  • Baruch Fischhoff
    • 1
  • Sarah Lichtenstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision ResearchA Branch of PerceptronicsEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations