Evaluating the intercoder reliability (ICR) of a coding frame is frequently recommended as good practice in qualitative analysis. ICR is a somewhat controversial topic in the qualitative research community, with some arguing that it is an inappropriate or unnecessary step within the goals of qualitative analysis. Yet ICR assessment can yield numerous benefits for qualitative studies, which include improving the systematicity, communicability, and transparency of the coding process; promoting reflexivity and dialogue within research teams; and helping convince diverse audiences of the trustworthiness of the analysis. Few guidelines exist to help researchers negotiate the assessment of ICR in qualitative analysis. The current article explains what ICR is, reviews common arguments for and against its incorporation in qualitative analysis and offers guidance on the practical elements of performing an ICR assessment.

No abstract

This paper is concerned with how people make meaning of the risks they face. It explores certain assumptions of the risk perception approaches, which dominate the area. It argues that despite changes currently taking place in the field, such models still focus on static, intrapersonal processes, with many viewing human thinking as analogous to erroneous information processing. In the place of an individual 'deficit' focus, the paper proposes a more intersubjective theory of the response to risk. Social representations theory is evaluated and its validity assessed by highlighting empirical work on representations of biotechnological and health risks. The review reveals that the response to risk is a highly social, emotive and symbolic entity. Therefore a theory and methods appropriate to such qualities are proposed, to produce a valid psychology of risk.

From earthquakes to epidemics, AIDS to industrial accidents, the mass media continually bring into our daily lives the awareness of risk. But how do people respond to this increased awareness? How do people cope with living in what has been termed 'the risk society'? This book attempts to explain how, within a given social and cultural context, individuals make sense of impending crisis. In particular it tries to explain the phenomenon of a widespread sense of personal invulnerability when faced with risk: the 'not me' factor. Using a social psychological framework it highlights emotional factors which are a key component of responses to risk but have hitherto been neglected due to the tendency of much work on risk to concentrate almost exclusively on cognitive processing. This book will appeal to an international audience of post-graduates, academics and researchers in the areas of risk, psychology, sociology, medical anthropology and psychoanalytic studies.

Abstract. The majority of people at risk from earthquakes do little or nothing to reduce their vulnerability. Over the past 40 years social scientists have tried to predict and explain levels of seismic hazard adjustment using models from behavioural sciences such as psychology. The present paper is the first to synthesise the major findings from the international literature on psychological correlates and causes of seismic adjustment at the level of the individual and the household. It starts by reviewing research on seismic risk perception. Next, it looks at norms and normative beliefs, focusing particularly on issues of earthquake protection responsibility and trust between risk stakeholders. It then considers research on attitudes towards seismic adjustment attributes, specifically beliefs about efficacy, control and fate. It concludes that an updated model of seismic adjustment must give the issues of norms, trust, power and identity a more prominent role. These have been only sparsely represented in the social psychological literature to date.