ALBERT

All Library Books, journals and Electronic Records Telegrafenberg

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK . : Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
    Risk analysis 24 (2004), S. 0 
    ISSN: 1539-6924
    Source: Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005
    Topics: Energy, Environment Protection, Nuclear Power Engineering
    Notes: Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The “analytic system” uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The “experiential system” is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed “doses of feeling” into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too “coldly rational”? This article addresses these important questions.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishing Ltd
    Risk analysis 19 (1999), S. 0 
    ISSN: 1539-6924
    Source: Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005
    Topics: Energy, Environment Protection, Nuclear Power Engineering
    Notes: The concept of exposure is central to chemical risk assessment and plays an important role in communicating to the public about the potential healthrisks of chemicals. Research on chemical risk perception has found some indication that the model lay people use to judge chemical exposure differs from that of toxicologists, thereby leading to different conclusions aboutchemical safety. This paper presents the results of a series of studies directed toward developing a model for understanding how lay people interpret the concept of chemical exposure. The results indicate that people'sbeliefs about chemical exposure (and its risks) are based on two broad categories of inferences. One category of inferences relates to the nature inwhich contact with a chemical has taken place, including the amount of a chemical involved and its potential health consequences. A second category ofinferences about chemical exposure relates to the pragmatics of languageinterpretation, leading to beliefs about the motives and purposes behind chemical risk communication. Risk communicators are encouraged to consider how alternative models of exposure and language interpretation can leadto conflicting conclusions on the part of the public about chemical safety.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishing Ltd
    Risk analysis 14 (1994), S. 0 
    ISSN: 1539-6924
    Source: Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005
    Topics: Energy, Environment Protection, Nuclear Power Engineering
    Notes: Potential health risks from exposure to power-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) have become an issue of significant public concern. This study evaluates a brochure designed to communicate EMF health risks from a scientific perspective. The study utilized a pretest-posttest design in which respondents judged various sources of EMF (and other) health and safety risks, both before reading the brochure and after. Respondents assessed risks on dimensions similar to those utilized in previous studies of risk perception. In addition, detailed ratings were made that probed respondents’ beliefs about the possible causal effects of EMF exposure. The findings suggest that naive beliefs about the potential of EMF exposure to cause harm were highly influenced by specific content elements of the brochure. The implications for using risk-communication approaches based on communicating scientific uncertainty are discussed.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishing Ltd
    Risk analysis 16 (1996), S. 0 
    ISSN: 1539-6924
    Source: Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005
    Topics: Energy, Environment Protection, Nuclear Power Engineering
    Notes: Public reaction to chemical technologies has included a perception that chemical exposure is a contributor to human health problems. Though these perceptions sometimes correspond with technical assessments of chemical risks, at other times they do not. This paper presents a descriptive model of the relationship between perception of one's health status and a set of factors that are used by individuals as part of causal reasoning about the meaning of somatic change. The model incorporates both personal events and experiences associated with somatic change (e.g., stress, sensory cues), as well as aspects of an individual's social context in which perceptions of chemical risks serve as a powerful framework for attributing meaning to chemical exposure. Within this model, the causal inferences that people make about the effects of chemical exposure on symptomatology are viewed as part of a natural, psychological adaptation in which the individual seeks to decrease their uncertainty about the factors or conditions that cause them to feel as they do.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    s.l. : American Chemical Society
    Industrial & engineering chemistry 10 (1918), S. 712-718 
    ISSN: 1520-5045
    Source: ACS Legacy Archives
    Topics: Chemistry and Pharmacology , Process Engineering, Biotechnology, Nutrition Technology
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Electronic Resource
    Electronic Resource
    Springer
    Risk analysis 19 (1999), S. 649-659 
    ISSN: 1539-6924
    Keywords: risk perception ; risk communication ; intuitive toxicology ; mental models
    Source: Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
    Topics: Energy, Environment Protection, Nuclear Power Engineering
    Notes: Abstract The concept of exposure is central to chemical risk assessment and plays an important role in communicating to the public about the potential health risks of chemicals. Research on chemical risk perception has found some indication that the model lay people use to judge chemical exposure differs from that of toxicologists, thereby leading to different conclusions about chemical safety. This paper presents the results of a series of studies directed toward developing a model for understanding how lay people interpret the concept of chemical exposure. The results indicate that people's beliefs about chemical exposure (and its risks) are based on two broad categories of inferences. One category of inferences relates to the nature in which contact with a chemical has taken place, including the amount of a chemical involved and its potential health consequences. A second category of inferences about chemical exposure relates to the pragmatics of language interpretation, leading to beliefs about the motives and purposes behind chemical risk communication. Risk communicators are encouraged to consider how alternative models of exposure and language interpretation can lead to conflicting conclusions on the part of the public about chemical safety.
    Type of Medium: Electronic Resource
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    Publication Date: 2000-01-01
    Print ISSN: 0273-1177
    Electronic ISSN: 1879-1948
    Topics: Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science, Production Engineering, Mining and Metallurgy, Traffic Engineering, Precision Mechanics , Physics
    Published by Elsevier
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    Publication Date: 2007-03-01
    Print ISSN: 0377-2217
    Electronic ISSN: 1872-6860
    Topics: Mathematics , Economics
    Published by Elsevier
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Publication Date: 2019-08-15
    Description: As space scientists and engineers plan new missions to Mars and other planets in our solar system, they will face critical questions about the potential for biological contamination of planetary surfaces. In a society that places ever-increasing importance on the role of public involvement in science and technology policy, questions about risks of biological contamination will be examined and debated in the media, and will lead to the formation of public perceptions of planetary-contamination risks. These perceptions will, over time, form an important input to the development of space policy. Previous research in public and expert perceptions of technological risks and hazards has shown that many of the problems faced by risk-management organizations are the result of differing perceptions of risk (and risk management) between the general public and scientific and technical experts. These differences manifest themselves both as disagreements about the definition (and level) of risk associated with a scientific, technological or industrial enterprise, and as distrust about the ability of risk-management organizations (both public and private) to adequately protect people's health and safety. This report presents the results of a set of survey studies designed to reveal perceptions of planetary exploration and protection from a wide range of respondents, including both members of the general public and experts in the life sciences. The potential value of this research lies in what it reveals about perceptions of risk and benefit that could improve risk-management policies and practices. For example, efforts to communicate with the public about Mars sample return missions could benefit from an understanding of the specific concerns that nonscientists have about such a mission by suggesting areas of potential improvement in public education and information. Assessment of both public and expert perceptions of risk can also be used to provide an advanced signal of aspects of planetary exploration and protection that may be particularly sensitive or controversial and that could prove problematic from a risk-management standpoint, perhaps warranting a more stringent risk-management approach than would otherwise be the case based on technical considerations alone. The design of the study compares perceptions and attitudes about space exploration relevant to a Mars sample return mission between three respondent groups: (1) members of The Planetary Society, a group representing individuals with a strong interest in space-related issues, (2) a group of university-aged students, representing a population relatively sensitive to environmental hazards, and (3) a group of life scientists outside of the space research community. Members of The Planetary Society received the survey as part of a special issue of The Planetary Report on planetary protection, which contained a number of background articles on planetary protection and related topics. A synopsis of the issue was prepared as an introduction to the survey for the other two groups.
    Keywords: Lunar and Planetary Science and Exploration
    Format: application/pdf
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...