|
|
ISSUE
The understanding of how humans think about risks is still incomplete.
While a large number of "risk perception" studies exist (usually a series
of hazards are to be judged according to a set of risk attributes), far
less research was done regarding people's attitudes towards risk-taking
(propensity versus aversion). Shortcomings include: most studies use students
or samples from the general public whereas investigations with actual risk-takers
are rare; the conceptualization of risk attitudes seems narrow (predominantly
utilizing abstract choice problems such as gambles); and the psychological
links between risk perception, risk attitudes and risk behavior need to
be looked at more systematically.
RESEARCH QUESTION
In which way do people who are familiar with a particular type of hazard
differ from others in how they think about risk-taking (attitude), how
they judge risk magnitude & utility of risky activities (risk perception)
and how far they accept hazard exposure? Propositions to be examined include:
People involved in risky work tend to be risk-aversive, produce lower risk
magnitude ratings and express higher acceptance; the attitude-behavior
link is stronger.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Type of study: Non-experimental field study.
Respondents: People involved in polar research (i.e., dealing
with an extreme & potentially hazardous natural environment).
Variables: Risk attitude (as measured by respective scales),
appraisal of hazards (modified version of BR's Hazard Evaluation Quest.),
sensation seeking (sensu Zuckerman), efficacy beliefs, personal experiences.
Hazards: Three types: those related to own work; not-pursued
high-risk activities; general 'reference' risks.
Data collection: Self-administered mail survey; questionnaire
booklet has been pretested.
EXPECTED UTILITY
The study should enhance our understanding of how people evaluate hazards
and decide about risky situations. Novel results can be expected as the
issue is not (yet) well-researched.
NOTE
Conducting an experiment with people working in an Antarctic station
has not yet been feasible. Future plans are under consideration.
A/Prof. Bernd ROHRMANN
Dept. of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010,
AUSTRALIA
E-Mail mail {at} rohrmannspace.net
WebSite http://www.rohrmannresearch.net/
Prof. Peter SUEDFELD
Dept. of Psychology, University of B.C., Vancouver, CANADA
Phone +1 604 8825713 Fax 8226923 E-Mail psuedfeld@cortex.psych.ubc.ca
|
|