How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits
about
A Cognitive-Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception.Self-reported preparedness of New Zealand acute care providers to mass emergencies before the Canterbury Earthquakes: a national survey.Communication in nuclear emergency preparedness: a closer look at information reception.Fear, familiarity, and the perception of risk: a quantitative analysis of disaster-specific concerns of paramedics.Presenting risk information in sexual and reproductive health care.Analyses of Acceptability Judgments Made Toward the Use of Nanocarrier-Based Targeted Drug Delivery: Interviews with Researchers and Research Trainees in the Field of New TechnologiesEnvironmental risk: perception and target with local versus global evaluation.Acceptable Risk Analysis for Abrupt Environmental Pollution Accidents in Zhangjiakou City, ChinaAre non-native plants perceived to be more risky? Factors influencing horticulturists' risk perceptions of ornamental plant species.Scientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterialsExploring early public responses to geoengineering.Social contagion of risk perceptions in environmental management networks.Health responses to a new high-voltage power line route: design of a quasi-experimental prospective field study in the Netherlands.Framework for the analysis of nanotechnologies' impacts and ethical acceptability: basis of an interdisciplinary approach to assessing novel technologies.Perception of health risks of electromagnetic fields by MRI radiographers and airport security officers compared to the general Dutch working population: a cross sectional analysis.Exposure Perception as a Key Indicator of Risk Perception and Acceptance of Sources of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic FieldsThe framing effect and skin conductance responsesEthics, Risk and Benefits Associated with Different Applications of Nanotechnology: a Comparison of Expert and Consumer Perceptions of Drivers of Societal AcceptanceAssessing the Impact of Affective Feedback on End-User Security AwarenessGender, Ethnicity and Environmental Risk Perception Revisited: The Importance of Residential Location.A cost-effectiveness approach to the qualification and acceptance of biomarkers.Adolescents' risk perceptions on mobile phones and their base stations, their trust to authorities and incivility in using mobile phones: a cross-sectional survey on 2240 high school students in Izmir, Turkey.Acceptability of blood and blood substitutes.Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk.Japanese Consumer Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food: Findings From an International Comparative Study.Heterogeneous risk perceptions: the case of poultry meat purchase intentions in Finland.Symposium on 'The challenge of translating nutrition research into public health nutrition'. Session 5: Nutrition communication. The challenge of effective food risk communication.Methodological issues in the monetary valuation of benefits in healthcare.World Market Development and Consumer Acceptance of Irradiation Technology.Household Dengue Prevention Interventions, Expenditures, and Barriers to Aedes aegypti Control in Machala, Ecuador.Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research.Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review.A framework for understanding risk perception, explored from the perspective of the water practitioner.Risk/Benefit Communication about Food-A Systematic Review of the Literature.How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks.Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania.Psychology, Financial Decision Making, and Financial Crises.What Do People Like to "Share" About Obesity? A Content Analysis of Frequent Retweets About Obesity on Twitter.Exploring reductions in London Underground passenger journeys following the July 2005 bombings.Informing Ex Ante Event Studies with Macro-Econometric Evidence on the Structural and Policy Impacts of Terrorism.
P2860
Q30196697-2005349B-9FEB-47B9-9B08-6B4FD2B6F96FQ30205137-B95D7A48-AD6C-4891-83A9-C58991ED6EF0Q30223127-495C474C-E8DE-4AB3-8BCD-D684D6B98005Q30226691-2572C90B-1499-4261-9506-26065C8501ADQ30249795-E95AE3D8-D77B-49BF-B49D-3DDE59A22A8EQ30386917-A19B0552-C88E-4260-8267-BEB0E1D45D21Q31155480-F3C19363-EEE3-48C1-A909-BD3772545E33Q33616458-6BA7B3E9-ACF5-4359-A270-AC1E85799EA3Q33864247-25A9062D-AB66-4F65-A7DA-20087AE467FCQ34183113-6CB485C1-4FB7-4CE1-A998-88E2BF8590D1Q34368571-2CCD307D-7ECF-4EDD-BD50-1B813159216DQ34508606-A0D4A03C-0DD4-4F26-8A2A-D52264EA9F75Q35114135-60025801-847B-4AE1-9BCA-B735DF598A26Q35147011-79C43D9E-72B5-4415-BF8F-A2760D67E11DQ35642931-EE9D360D-5CFF-468D-8DD8-C5FCD89EF56DQ35851767-D20E9085-3565-423A-A447-D5EEFF37F7D8Q35916651-4702D61D-5AC8-4003-980A-6410D562F8BBQ35952635-ECF1F998-FCC4-459C-B2AA-0D2677A32666Q36020206-C36D96F7-7A4A-4C96-9D00-0DA66F2CC542Q36021737-22B2042D-B176-4BF3-9499-4BEA1A5116CFQ36642042-AA4DEAE7-47B9-487B-8236-CB27A6145422Q36688964-CBCA50AF-780D-4F7E-9B8A-87D6D5131B30Q37060481-37644E3A-D31E-435F-AD0D-3AE7D4966116Q37189801-2213A408-75A9-4182-A114-FF05077D43BBQ37250898-6AA6E98F-EFA3-4A36-A456-22204DB8E7CAQ37295967-607FB5F4-9E7E-4776-A1FF-0E2BC9CA7B44Q37401456-E4747F35-5B76-401C-8428-113667F2C9B1Q37609212-7A817BD5-200C-4C66-93B4-41C7363D1475Q37636122-23E789E8-C5B3-475C-8AED-556B5D70FA4EQ37678525-AC03FC1C-8869-4209-A099-BF166C093A72Q38014957-335E28D5-45E8-4A9B-80C8-951DD1B95465Q38119872-5F2CC21C-1DA5-4BF2-90F2-2708B62EAFEEQ38126564-D2D14028-429A-4E0C-BEEF-FED5CE7CAF2BQ38313040-2233BA7A-2704-4185-B915-1668F8EE4E36Q38396060-90D12FEA-DAA1-4872-BC22-D65E9E287201Q38451056-7E7CABB0-F914-44DD-ACD1-E6D9B765BDF5Q38546010-B3674D08-294C-4F5E-B4B4-F23DD7E094FBQ38547058-8D14425A-75B2-448E-BD69-AFA8FA2FB0FBQ38569302-279CABE6-0F76-4366-9580-DCD3D070450AQ38638243-C9EE95BF-22AB-47A4-B2AF-CCCE1E7F88C3
P2860
How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits
description
wetenschappelijk artikel
@nl
наукова стаття, опублікована у квітні 1978
@uk
name
How safe is safe enough? A psy ...... chnological risks and benefits
@en
How safe is safe enough? A psy ...... chnological risks and benefits
@nl
type
label
How safe is safe enough? A psy ...... chnological risks and benefits
@en
How safe is safe enough? A psy ...... chnological risks and benefits
@nl
prefLabel
How safe is safe enough? A psy ...... chnological risks and benefits
@en
How safe is safe enough? A psy ...... chnological risks and benefits
@nl
P2093
P356
P1433
P1476
How safe is safe enough? A psy ...... chnological risks and benefits
@en
P2093
Barbara Combs
Sarah Lichtenstein
Stephen Read
P2888
P304
P356
10.1007/BF00143739
P577
1978-04-01T00:00:00Z