Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks

David R Holtgrave, E. U. Weber

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study of 29 MBA students compares two models of risk perception for both financial and health risk stimuli. The first, inspired by Luce and Weber's Conjoint Expected Risk (CER) model, uses five dimensions: probability of gain, loss and status quo, and expected benefit and harm. The second, inspired by the Sovic et al. psychometric model, employs seven dimensions: voluntariness, dread, control, knowledge, catastrophic potential, novelty, and equity. The CER-type model provided a better fit for most subjects and stimuli. Adding the psychological risk dimensions from the Slovic et al. model explained only modestly more variance. Relationships between the dimensions of the two models are described and the construction of a hybrid model explored.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)553-558
Number of pages6
JournalRisk Analysis
Volume13
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1993
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Risk perception
Health risks
health risk
Health
stimulus
voluntariness
Psychometrics
Students
Psychology
psychometrics
equity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

Cite this

Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. / Holtgrave, David R; Weber, E. U.

In: Risk Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 5, 1993, p. 553-558.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Holtgrave, David R ; Weber, E. U. / Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. In: Risk Analysis. 1993 ; Vol. 13, No. 5. pp. 553-558.
@article{2b01ead2bd6d439eb5979d0a45f05de1,
title = "Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks",
abstract = "This study of 29 MBA students compares two models of risk perception for both financial and health risk stimuli. The first, inspired by Luce and Weber's Conjoint Expected Risk (CER) model, uses five dimensions: probability of gain, loss and status quo, and expected benefit and harm. The second, inspired by the Sovic et al. psychometric model, employs seven dimensions: voluntariness, dread, control, knowledge, catastrophic potential, novelty, and equity. The CER-type model provided a better fit for most subjects and stimuli. Adding the psychological risk dimensions from the Slovic et al. model explained only modestly more variance. Relationships between the dimensions of the two models are described and the construction of a hybrid model explored.",
author = "Holtgrave, {David R} and Weber, {E. U.}",
year = "1993",
doi = "10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00014.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "553--558",
journal = "Risk Analysis",
issn = "0272-4332",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks

AU - Holtgrave, David R

AU - Weber, E. U.

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - This study of 29 MBA students compares two models of risk perception for both financial and health risk stimuli. The first, inspired by Luce and Weber's Conjoint Expected Risk (CER) model, uses five dimensions: probability of gain, loss and status quo, and expected benefit and harm. The second, inspired by the Sovic et al. psychometric model, employs seven dimensions: voluntariness, dread, control, knowledge, catastrophic potential, novelty, and equity. The CER-type model provided a better fit for most subjects and stimuli. Adding the psychological risk dimensions from the Slovic et al. model explained only modestly more variance. Relationships between the dimensions of the two models are described and the construction of a hybrid model explored.

AB - This study of 29 MBA students compares two models of risk perception for both financial and health risk stimuli. The first, inspired by Luce and Weber's Conjoint Expected Risk (CER) model, uses five dimensions: probability of gain, loss and status quo, and expected benefit and harm. The second, inspired by the Sovic et al. psychometric model, employs seven dimensions: voluntariness, dread, control, knowledge, catastrophic potential, novelty, and equity. The CER-type model provided a better fit for most subjects and stimuli. Adding the psychological risk dimensions from the Slovic et al. model explained only modestly more variance. Relationships between the dimensions of the two models are described and the construction of a hybrid model explored.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027370385&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027370385&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00014.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00014.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 8259445

AN - SCOPUS:0027370385

VL - 13

SP - 553

EP - 558

JO - Risk Analysis

JF - Risk Analysis

SN - 0272-4332

IS - 5

ER -