Acceptable risk as a psychological judgment: risk perception, trust, and fairness

Area of Science:

• Risk analysis and management
• Social psychology of risk perception
• Decision science

Background:

• Acceptable risk is typically defined by technical, regulatory, or ethical standards.
• Individual risk acceptability judgments extend beyond probability and harm estimation.
• Factors like hazard perception, trust in risk managers, and perceived fairness play crucial roles.

Purpose of the Study:

• To synthesize research on risk perception, trust, and fairness.
• To develop a framework for understanding acceptable-risk judgments.
• To explore how interpersonal configurations of exposure, control, and justification shape risk acceptability.

Main Methods:

• Mini-review integrating research from risk perception, trust, and fairness literature.
• Development of a framework distinguishing self-regarding, other-controlled, and collectively governed risks.
• Analysis of how these configurations influence perceived threat, credibility, and legitimacy.

Main Results:

• Acceptable-risk judgments are influenced by how hazards are perceived, trust in management, and fairness of exposure.
• Risk configurations (self-regarding, other-controlled, collectively governed) affect the salience of threat, credibility, and legitimacy.
• This framework explains variations in risk tolerance across different settings.

Conclusions:

• Acceptable-risk judgments are complex, involving psychological and social factors beyond technical assessments.
• Understanding these factors is crucial for effective risk communication and public engagement.
• Future research should focus on the psychology of legitimacy and public judgment in risk contexts.