Evaluating the simplified conjoint expected risk model: Comparing the use of objective and subjective information

被引:6
作者
Carlstrom, LK
Woodward, JA
Palmer, CGS
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Psychol, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Psychiat, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
关键词
risk : risk perception; simplified conjoint expected risk model; conjoint expected risk model;
D O I
10.1111/0272-4332.203037
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
The simplified Conjoint Expected Risk (CER) model by Holtgrave and Weber posits that perceived risk is a linear combination of the subjective judgments of the probabilities of harm, benefit, and status quo, and the expected harm and benefit of an activity. It modifies Luce and Weber's original CER model-that uses objective information to evaluate financial gambles-to accommodate activities such as health/technology activities where values of the model variables are subjective. If the simplified model is a valid modification of the original model, its performance should not be sensitive to the use of subjective information. However, because people may evaluate information differently when objective information is provided to them than when they generate information on their own, the performance of the simplified CER model may not be robust to the sourer of model-variable information. We compared the use of objective and subjective information, and results indicate that the estimates of the simplified CER model parameters and the proportion of variance in risk judgments accounted for by the model are similar under these two conditions. Thus, the simplified CER model is viable with activities for which harm and benefit information is subjective.
引用
收藏
页码:385 / 392
页数:8
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach [J].
Bontempo, RN ;
Bottom, WP ;
Weber, EU .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1997, 17 (04) :479-488
[2]   HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH - PSYCHOMETRIC STUDY OF ATTITUDES TOWARDS TECHNOLOGICAL RISKS AND BENEFITS [J].
FISCHHOFF, B ;
SLOVIC, P ;
LICHTENSTEIN, S ;
READ, S ;
COMBS, B .
POLICY SCIENCES, 1978, 9 (02) :127-152
[3]  
Hallenbeck WH, 1986, QUANTITATIVE RISK AS
[4]   ON THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF RISK - LANGUAGE, LOGIC AND SOCIAL-SCIENCE [J].
HAYES, MV .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1992, 35 (04) :401-407
[5]   DIMENSIONS OF RISK PERCEPTION FOR FINANCIAL AND HEALTH RISKS [J].
HOLTGRAVE, DR ;
WEBER, EU .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1993, 13 (05) :553-558
[6]  
JOHNSON EJ, 1984, J EXP PSYCHOL GEN, V113, P55
[7]   AN AXIOMATIC THEORY OF CONJOINT, EXPECTED RISK [J].
LUCE, RD ;
WEBER, EU .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1986, 30 (02) :188-205
[8]   Risk perception: An empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct [J].
Palmer, CGS .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1996, 16 (05) :717-723
[9]   ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO DECISION-MAKING UNDER RISK - MOMENTS VERSUS RISK DIMENSIONS [J].
PAYNE, JW .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1973, 80 (06) :439-453
[10]   THEORY OF RISK [J].
POLLATSEK, A ;
TVERSKY, A .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1970, 7 (03) :540-+