Premium
Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses
Author(s) -
Marris Claire,
Langford Ian,
Saunderson Thomas,
O'Riordan Timothy
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
risk analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1539-6924
pISSN - 0272-4332
DOI - 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.x
Subject(s) - aggregate (composite) , psychology , computer science , data science , econometrics , mathematics , materials science , composite material
The “psychometric paradigm” developed by Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein was a landmark in research about public attitudes toward risks. One problem with this work, however, was that (at least initially) it did not attempt to distinguish between individuals or groups of people, except “experts” vs. “lay people.” This paradigm produced a “cognitive map” of hazards, and the assumption seemed to be that the characteristics identified were inherent attributes of risk. This paper examines the validity of this assumption. A questionnaire survey similar to those designed by Slovic et al. was conducted, but the data were analyzed at both the aggregate level, using mean scores, and at the level of individuals ( N = 131 Norwich residents). The results reported here demonstrate that (1) individuals vary in their perception of the same risk issue; (2) individuals vary in their rating of the same risk characteristics on the same risk issue; and (3) some of the strong intercorrelations observed between risk characteristics at the aggregate level are not supported when the same data are analysed at the level of individuals. Despite these findings, the relationship between risk characteristics and risk perceptions inferred by the psychometric paradigm did hold true at the level of individuals, for most—but not all—of the characteristics. In particular, the relationship between “lack of knowledge to those exposed” and risk perceptions appears to be a complex one, a finding which has important implications for risk communication strategies.