Saturday, November 11, 2006

REFERENCES for PRECEDING FOUR POSTS

These are references for the preceding (though temporally following) four posts. As I mentioned at the beginning of tihs, I was writing a grant proposal and needed to summarizes the field for colleagues outside the field. So having taught RISK COMMUNICATION for too many years, I put this togther and thought it would be useful to you and others.

I plan to publish a version of this in the near future.

REFERENCES

Alhakami, A. S. & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.

Barke, R. P. & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13, 425-439.

Berube, D. (2006). Nano-hype: The Truth Beyond the Nanotechnology Buzz, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Berube, D. (2000). Debunking mini-max reasoning. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 21, 53-73.

Bogatin, D. (2006). YouTube the video star, Act II. ZDNet, July 17, http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=252, (accessed October 11, 2006).

Burns, E. (2006). Blogs Suffer in Poll On Preferred News Sources. ClickZ Network. October 3. http://clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3623588. (accessed October 5, 2006).

Cohen, B. (1985). Criteria for technology acceptability. Risk Analysis, 5:1, 1-3.

Cohen, G. L., Sherman, D. K, McGoey, M., Hsu, L., Bastardi, A. & Ross, L. (2005). Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological close-mindedness and inflexibility, September 10. http://research.yale.edu/culturalcognition/documents/cohen_self_affirmation_draft.pdf, (accessed October 3, 2006).

Cultural Cognition Project, Yale Law School, National Risk and Culture Survey. October 3, 2006, http://research.yale.edu/culturalcognition/content/view/45/89/, (accessed October 3, 2006).

Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61-82.

Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. and L. Sjöberg. 1991. Attitudes and conceptions of adolescents with regard to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21, 2007-2035.

Einsiedel, E. (2005). In the Public Eye: The Early Landscape of Nanotechnology among Canadian and U.S. Publics, August 5, http://www.azonano.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1468. (accessed October 8, 2006).

Fife-Schaw, C. & Rowe, G. (1996). Public perception of everyday food hazards: A psychometric study. Risk Analysis, 16. 487-500.

Finucane, M. L. (2001). Public perceptions of risk. Oregonians for Rationality, http://www.o4r.org/pf_v6n2/Risk.htm. (accessed May 18, 2005).

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, D. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.

Fischoff, B, Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Weighing the risks: Which risks are acceptable?” Environment, 2, 17-20, 32-38 reprinted in P. Slovic. (2000). The Perception of Risk, London: Earthscan Publication, Ltd.121-136.

Fischoff, B, Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Studies, 9, 127-152.

Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13, 643-648.

Forrester Report. (2006). Forester Report on Podcasting. April 6. http://www.podtech.net/?=510. (accessed October 5, 2006).

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderly, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food related risk? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16, 473-486.

Frewer, L. j., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk benefit and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22, 98-124.

Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901. http://www.nature.com/naturejournal/v438/n70707/full/438900a.html. (accessed June 9, 2006).

Hohenemser, C. Kates, R. W. & Slovic, P. (1983). The nature of technological hazard. Science, 220, 378-384 reprinted in P. Slovic. (2000). The Perception of Risk, London: Earthscan Publication, Ltd. 168-181
Jasanoff, S. (1993) Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 13, 123-129.

Jenkins-Smith, H. C. & Silva, C. L. (1998). Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 107-122.

Johnson, B. (1992). Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. http://www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol4/summer/johnson.htm. (accessed October 6, 2006).

Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D. & Gastil, J. (2006). Fear of democracy: A cultural evaluation of Sunstein on risk. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1071-1109.

Kanjanne, A. & Pirttilä-Backman, A. (1999). Laypeople’s viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 303-315.

Kapferer, J. N. (1989). A mass poisoning rumor in Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 467-481.

Kasperson, R. E., Ortwin, R., Slovic, P., Brown, H., Emel, J., Goble, R. L., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. J. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187.

Kletz, T. A. (1996). Risk – Two views: The public’s and the experts. Disaster Prevention Magazine, 5, 41-46.

Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12, 215-231.

MacGregor, D. G., Slovic, P. & Malmfors, T. (1999). How exposed is exposed enough? Lay inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Analysis, 19, 649-659.

McGann, R. (2004). The blogosphere by the numbers. ClickZ Network. November 22. http://clickz.com/stats/sectors/traffic_patterns/. (accessed

McDaniels, T. L., Axelrod, L. J., Cavanagh, N. S. & O’Riordan, T. (1997). Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis, 17, 341-352.

Milbrath, L. W. (1981). Citizen surveys as citizen participation mechanisms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 478-496.

Neil, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1994). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Toxicologic Pathology, 22:2, 198-201.

Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P., eds. (2003). The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.

Renn, O. (2004). Perception of risk: socio-psychological models. Consumer Voice, March, p. 4.

Rothman, S. & Lichter, R. (1987). Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy. American Political Science Review, 81, 383-404.

Rowe, G. & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 21. 341-356.

Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004) Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24:5, 1289-1299.

Savadori, L., Rumiati, R., & Bonini, N. (1998). Expertise and regional differences in risk perception: The case of Italy. Journal of Psychology, 57, 101-113.

Siebert, F. S. (1956). The Libertarian Theory. In F. S. Siebert, T. Peterson, & W. Schramm (Eds.), Four theories of the press (pp. 39-71). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Sjöberg, L. (2002). The allegedly simple structure of experts’ risk perception: An urban legend in risk research, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27, Autumn, 443-459.

Sjöberg, L. (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21. 189-198.

Sjöberg, L. (2000a). Consequences matter, risk is marginal. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 287-295.

Sjöberg, L. (2000b). Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 353-367.

Sjöberg, L. (1999a). Political decisions and public risk perception. A paper read at the Third International Public Policy and Social Science Conference, St. Catherine’s College, Oxford University, UK, July 28-30, 1999.

Sjöberg, L. (1999b). Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Human Ecology Review, 6, 1-9.

Sjöberg, L. (1998). World views, political attitudes and risk perception. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 9, Spring. 137-152.

Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19. 689-701.

Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13. 675-682.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.

Slovic, P. (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6, 403-415.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lictenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. R. Kates, C. Hohenemser & J. Kasperson, eds. Boulder: Westview Press. 91-125.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21, 14-20, 36-39.

Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. S., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intuitive toxicology II: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15, 661-675.

Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perception of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14, 799-806.

Starr, C. (1969). Social perception versus rational risk. Science, 165, p. 1232.

Sunstein, C. R. (2004). Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment. NY: Cambridge UP.

Sunstein, C. R. (2001). The daily we. The Boston Review. Summer. http://www.boston.review.net/BR26.3/sunstein.html. (accessed June 15, 2006)

Wahlberg, A. A. & Sjöberg, L. (2000). Risk perception and the media. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 31-50.

Weinstein, N. D. (1988). Attitudes of the Public and the Department of Environmental Protection Toward Environmental Hazards. Final Report, Trenton, New Jersey, Division of Science and Research, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Wyler, A. R., Masuda, M. & Holmes, T. H. (1968). Seriousness of illness rating scale. Journal of Psychsomatic Research, 11, 363-374.

1 comment:

sheela said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Susan

http://texasholdpoker.info