Judgments of Hazard, Risk, and Danger: Do They Differ?
- 1 October 1990
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting
- Vol. 34 (5) , 503-507
- https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129003400515
Abstract
There were three purposes of the present research. The first was to test whether some of the discrepancies found in the hazard and risk perception literature were due to differences between the connotations of the terms hazard and risk. The second purpose was to examine the relationship between willingness to read warnings and generalized cautious intent, as well as other relevant variables suggested by past literature. The third purpose was to examine the relation between objective measures of injury (e.g., frequencies of hospital emergency room admissions) and people's subjective perceptions. The results showed that the expressions of hazardous, risky, dangerous and hazardous-to-use connote the same meaning to lay participants. Strong intercorrelations were found between overall unsafeness (a composite of the four hazard-risk expressions), injury severity, cautious intent, and willingness to read warnings. While injury likelihood played a small part in the prediction of willingness to read warnings, the results indicated that overall unsafeness (and severity of injury) play the foremost role in people's judgements of whether to read warnings and to act cautiously. No relationship was observed between objective measures of injury frequency and people's subjective perceptions of injury likelihood which is taken as a further indication that people do not readily use injury likelihood in their judgements of product safety. The implications are two-fold. First, the results suggest that lay persons do not interpret the term risk in the same way as do experts. These results suggest that other terminology and language may be needed to express probability to lay persons. Second, the results suggest that designers of warnings and educational materials should focus their attention to ways that appropriately communicate how badly a person can get hurt, rather than (or to a lesser extent) the likelihood of getting hurt.This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Injury Severity and Likelihood in WarningsProceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 1990
- Risk Perception and Precautionary Intent for Common Consumer ProductsProceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 1989
- The concept of risk: a decision theoretic approachErgonomics, 1988
- The Optimism Bias and Traffic SafetyProceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 1987
- Consumer Products: How are the Hazards Perceived?Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 1987
- Factors Affecting Consumers' Perceptions of Product Warnings: An Examination of the Differences between Male and Female ConsumersProceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 1987
- Perceived Effectiveness of Environmental WarningsProceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 1985
- The Biasing Effects of Product Familiarity on Consumers' Awareness of HazardProceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 1984
- Unrealistic optimism about future life events.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980
- Judged frequency of lethal events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1978