A Yardstick for Danger: Developing a Flexible and Sensitive Measure of Risk Perception

Abstract

While individual perceptions of risk are central to many behavioral theories of hazard response and are of considerable interest in both conceptual and applied work surrounding risk, hazards, and decision making, there is currently no consensus on how perceived risk should best be measured. Several recent efforts have laid the groundwork for a conceptual model outlining four key factors that make up risk perception: exposure, susceptibility, severity, and affective response. In this article, we use an extensive scale‐development process to develop empirically supported 3–4 item subscales to measure each of those four dimensions. Using cognitive interviewing techniques and several quantitative psychometric methods including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and item‐response theory analyses, we reduce a large set of potential items to the highest‐quality items to assess each subscale. These subscales can be used to make comparisons across perceived risk in different hazard contexts and populations.

Disaster Anthropomorphism: A Novel Method for the Conflicts Between Disaster Prevention and Sustainable Development Based on a Mechanism Description

“…Risk Perception Scale. The scale of risk perception comes from Walpole and Wilson [14], in which Risk Perception Scale contains 4 parts: Affect Subscale (α = 0.861, 3 items), Susceptibility Subscale (α = 0.858, 3 items), Exposure Subscale (α = 0.899, 2 items), and Extent Subscale (α = 0.859, 2 items), all of which are 7-point Likert scales (1 = not at all and 7 = very much). Other research materials like anthropomorphism manipulation method and the Preventive Behavior Scale (α=0.908) are similar to Study 1.…”

“…Study 1 tested the relationship between anthropomorphism and preventive behaviors, Study 2 verified the mediating role of perceived risk between anthropomorphism and preventive behaviors, and Study 3 finally tested the moderating role of severity. All studies were used modified questionnaires originated from some previous studies of other researchers [12][13][14][15]. The final goal of these studies is finding a proper model to decipher the secret of the relationship between anthropomorphic disasters and preventive intentions, and finally to evaluate whether it can be used in disaster prevention education.…”

Ethical leadership supports safety voice by increasing risk perception and reducing ethical ambiguity: Evidence from the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…While there is no universally agreed definition of risk perception, it is commonly conceived in academic literature to refer to the content and/or processes underlying people's appraisals of risky objects, situations, relations, and activities (Siegrist & Árvai, 2020 ; Slovic et al., 2004 ; Wilson et al., 2019 ). Understood in this broad sense, risk perception can be understood to reflect both analytical judgements and beliefs about the likelihood and severity of harm, as well as affective processes and emotional responses that shape these evaluations (Slovic et al., 2004 ; Walpole & Wilson, 2021 ; Wardman, 2006 ). How people perceive risk is considered important largely due to its association with behavioral decision making in the face of uncertainty across everyday life, as well as regarding extreme and rare events (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1979 ; Wardman & Bouder, 2022 ).…”

Using information provision and interactive risk maps to motivate testing for radon

“…We take risk perception to be comprised of distinct psychological dimensions: a general affective response (i.e. worry), perceived likelihood of being affected by the risk and expected severity of outcomes if affected (Ferrer et al, 2016;Walpole & Wilson, 2021;Wilson, Zwickle & Walpole, 2019). We assessed willingness to test for radon using a straightforward rating scale and a willingness-to-pay measure, to indicate the value users assign to determining the level of risk in their home with greater certainty (Breidert, Hahsler & Reutterer, 2006).…”