Talk:Risk perception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Gerd Gigerenzer: Out of the frying pan into the fire: Behavioral reactions to terrorist attacks, in: Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, 2006, Abstract [1] -- Cherubino 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

euh yes... but what is the point you want to make?? Don't get me wrong I really like Gigerenzer's work, but how does this fit into the current article. If we want to add risk perception on terrorism we should also notice the recent Fischhoff, Lerner et al (2005) study (sorry typing from home so lack complete ref). Then we might consider an additional terrorism risk perception paragraph, which needs to be written (seems hot so may be feasible). On another line of thought: please do not reference to (limited access) journal papers, as many people may not have access to this source. So the Blackwell-RA link should not go into the article. Arnoutf 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Information presented by trusted sources is given more credence than information from untrusted sources."

Is this sentence at the end even necessary? It's not an actual point - but a restatement of the definition. "Information presented by 'trusted' sources is 'given more credence' actually means 'Information presented by 'sources that are given more credence' [are] 'given more credence.' In other words, this point proves absolutely nothing about the nature of trust, but just defines trust through repetition in the sentence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Although similar it is not exactly the same. It says indeed what you say in your restated definition; however that is not a strict repetition. The difference lies in the fact that the source (e.g. the second hand car sales man) is either trusted or not; his information (e.g. this car belonged to an old lady who never used it for anything much) may be trusted or not. The sentence states that for a trusted source it is more likely the message itself is more likely to be given credence (i.e. the car salesman is trusted, than I believe the car actually belonged to the old lady). While the difference is subtle in the scientific literature this difference is generally used (see articles in Risk Analysis). Arnoutf 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

The description of asymmetry of gains and losses is confusing. I suggest that someone check the Prospect Theory entry, which should probably be cross-referenced, and ensure consistency. Thanks.R2SBD (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References?

As a non-specialist with an interest in these ideas, I thought this article well done. But it needs work to deal with the assumption that all statements are supported by the (very few) references. I've added just a couple of specimen requests for citations, to point out the problem.Testbed (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)