Judgments of hazard, risk, and danger: Do they differ?

Young, S. L.
Brelsford, J. W.
Wogalter, M. S.
Publication Year: 1990

Citation

27.  Young, S. L., Brelsford, J. W., & Wogalter, M. S. (1990). Judgments of hazard, risk, and danger: Do they differ? Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34, 503-507.

Abstract

There were three purposes of thc prcsent research. The first was to test whether some of the discrepancies found in the hazard and risk perception literature werc due to differcnces between t h e connotations of the terms hazard and risk. The second purpose was to exmine the relationship between willingness to read warnings and generalized cautious intent, as well as other relcv,ant varhblcs suggested by past literature. The third purpose was to examine the relation between objective measurcs of injury (e.g., frequencies of hospital emergency mom admissions) and people's subjective perceptions. The rcsults showed that the expressions of hazardous, risky, dangerous and hazardous-to-use connote the same meaning to lay participants. Strong intercorrelationswere found between overall unsafeness (a composite of the four hazard-risk expressions), injury severity, cautious intent, and willingness to read warnings. While injury likelihood playcd a small pan in the prediction of willingness to read warnings, the results indicated that overall unsafeness (and scverity of injury) play the foremost role in people's judgements of whether to read warnings and to act cautiously. No relationship was observed between objective measures of injury frequency and people's subjective perceptions of injury likelihood which is taken as a further indication that people do not readily use injury likelihood in their judgements of product safety. The implications are two-fold. First, the results suggest that lay persons do not interpret the term risk in the same way as do experts. These results suggcst that other terminology and language may be needed to express probability to lay persons. Second, the results suggest that designers of warnings and educational materials should focus their attention to ways that appropriately communicate how badly a person can get hurt, rather than (or to a lesser extent) the likelihood of getting hurt. Rice University Rice University Rensselaer Polytechnic instime

Publication Details

Source
Proceedings of the Human Factors Society
Volume
34
Pages
503-507

Publication Type

Conference Papers / Proceedings

View / Download Publication PDF

Copy / Export Citation

Download RIS  |  Download BibTeX

Exported citations use the available record metadata. Check formatting before academic use.