(How) Can we value health, safety and the environment?

Loomes, Graham

doi:10.1016/j.joep.2006.05.005

Cited by 37 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Before reaching such a conclusion, we need to establish which set of responses is the most valid. One criterion against which to assess the validity of responses it to test the sensitivity to a factor that should have an impact on people"s concern (Loomes, 2006). We might expect that, all other things being equal, people should regard more deaths as worse than less.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of ‘labelling’ on people’s perceptions

Robinson

Covey

Spencer

et al. 2010

Journal of Economic Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of economic psychology. Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of ‘labelling’ on people’s perceptions

Robinson

Covey

Spencer

et al. 2010

Journal of Economic Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, the term "risk landscape" (6) has been used to describe the interactions of various agents with responsibilities for managing risk and the consequences of these interactions. Theorizing about bridging the divide between policymakers, experts, and lay people has tended to focus on one of two levels of analysis (e.g., institutional policy (7) or individual decision making (8) ); rational actor approaches; (9) or the examination of differences between lay people and experts. (10,11) However, a more theoretically comprehensive understanding of the policy process and lay beliefs could contribute to effective policy outcomes.…”

Section: Creating the Risk Landscape: Confluence And Contoursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk

Soane

Schubert

Pollard

et al. 2015

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Government institutions have responsibilities to distribute risk management funds meaningfully and to be accountable for their choices. We took a macro-level sociological approach to understanding the role of government in managing environmental risks, and insights from micro-level psychology to examine individual-level risk-related perceptions and beliefs. Survey data from 2,068 U.K. citizens showed that lay people's funding preferences were associated positively with beliefs about responsibility and trust, yet associations with perception varied depending on risk type. Moreover, there were risk-specific differences in the funding preferences of the lay sample and 29 policymakers. A laboratory-based study of 109 participants examined funding allocation in more detail through iterative presentation of expert information. Quantitative and qualitative data revealed a meso-level framework comprising three types of decisionmakers who varied in their willingness to change funding allocation preferences following expert information: adaptors, responders, and resistors. This research highlights the relevance of integrated theoretical approaches to understanding the policy process, and the benefits of reflexive dialogue to managing environmental risks.

show abstract

“…1 for details). One thing that's interesting there, and that I've only ever seen one piece of work on (Loomes, 2006) is how, it's the extent to which cultural assumptions are carried within the definition of the game. There was a little bit of work we did in the SCARR Programme with Graham Loomes and Judith Mehta, just playing the game in a very naive kind of way, but also spending a lot of talking to the participants and having different kinds of people doing it, And they all tended to say, "Yes, well, you know, it's a game isn't it?".…”

Section: Bob: Because It Was New To Them?mentioning

confidence: 99%