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

Acceptable risk is often defined in technical, regulatory, or ethical terms. Yet people do not decide that a risk is acceptable simply by estimating probabilities or expected harms. Judgments of acceptability are also shaped by how a hazard is perceived, whether those responsible for managing it are trusted, and whether exposure is regarded as fair. This mini review brings together research on risk perception, trust, and fairness to show how acceptable-risk judgments are formed within interpersonal configurations of exposure, control, and justification. The framework distinguishes primarily self-regarding risks, other-controlled risks, and collectively governed or mandated risks, arguing that these configurations affect the relative salience of perceived threat, institutional credibility, and legitimacy. This perspective helps explain why technically similar risks may be tolerated, contested, or rejected across settings. It also identifies implications for future research on risk communication, public judgment, and the psychology of legitimacy.