Risk Algısını Anlamak: Risk Algısı Çalışmalarının İncelenmesi ve Siyasi Sonuçlarının Tartışılması

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 8, 21 - 41, 01.10.2015

A. Burcu Bayram

Öz

Türkiye bir riskler ülkesi. Terörizmden doğal afetlere, birçok risk ülkeyi ve insanlarını çevrelemekte. Ancak oldukça şaşırtıcıdır ki, risk algısı literatürü Türk sosyal bilimlerine yeterli ölçüde entegre olmamıştır. Bu makale iki temel amacı gerçekleştirmektedir. Öncelikle, risk algısı araştırmalarının kapsamlı ve analitik incelemesini sunar. İkinci olarak, risk algısı araştırmalarından çıkan siyasi ve idari sonuçları tartışarak, devlet yetkililerine kamu politikaları ve risk komünikasyonu hakkında öneriler getirir. Bu makalenin başlıca katkısı risk algısını verimli ve siyasi önem taşıyan bir bilimsel araştırma sahası olarak ileri sürmek ve bilim insanları ve siyasetçileri bu sahaya daha çok önem vermeye teşvik etmektir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Risk algısı, risk komünikasyonu, kamu politikaları, social sciences, Türk sosyal bilimleri.

Perceiving Risk Perception: An Analysis of Risk Perception Research and Discussion of Its Policy Implications

Öz

Turkey is a country of risks. From terrorism to natural disasters, various risks surround the country and its people. It is, however, astonishing that the risk perception literature has not been sufficiently integrated into Turkish social sciences. This article realizes two main objectives. Firstly, it provides a comprehensive analytical review of the research on risk perception. Secondly, it discusses the political and administrative implications arising out of risk perception research and offers recommendations to government officials on public policy and risk communication. The principal contribution of this article is to propose risk perception as an efficient and politically relevant scientific field of research and encourage scientists and politicians to attach more importance to this field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Risk perception, risk communication, public policy, social sciences, Turkish social sciences.

Kaynakça

• Adams, John, Risk, London: UCL Press, 1995.
• Akan, Hulya, YesimGurol, Guldal Izbirak, Sukran Ozdatlı, Gulden Yil- maz, Ayca Vitrinel, and Osman Hayran, “Knowledge and Attitudes of University Students toward Pandemic Influenza: A Cross- Sectional Study from Turkey”, BMC Public Health 10 (1), 2010, p. 413- 421.
• Alhakami, Ali Siddiq and Paul Slovic, “A Psychological Study of the In- verse Relationship between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit”, Risk Analysis 14 (6), 1994, p. 1085-1096.
• Apaydin, Fahri and Mehmet Emir Köksal, “Turkish Consumers’ Risk Perception towards Global Computer Brands”, International Journal of Marketing Studies 3 (3), 2011, p.165-172.
• Aven, Terje, Ortwin Renn, and Eugene A. Rosa, “On the Ontological Status of the Concept of Risk”, Safety Science 49 (8), 2011, p.1074- 1079.
• Boholm, Asa, “Comparative Studies of Risk Perception: A Review of Twenty Years of Research”, Journal of Risk Research 1 (2), 1998, p. 135- 163.
• Ceber, Esin, Meral Turk Soyer, Meltem Ciceklioglu, and Sunduz Cimat, “Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Perception on Nurses and Midwives in Bornova Health District in Turkey”, Cancer Nursing 29 (3), 2006, p. 244-249.
• Damasio, Antonio R., Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and Human Brain, New York: Avon Press, 1994.
• De Wit, John B.F., Enny Das, and Raymond Vet, “What Works Best: Objective Statistics or a Personal Testimonial? An Assessment of the Persuasive Effects of Different Types of Message Evidence on Risk Perception”, Health Psychology 27 (1), 2008, p. 110-115.
• Druckman, James N., “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects”, American Po- litical Science Review 98 (4), 2004, p. 671-686.
• Entman, Robert M., “Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Para- digm”, Journal of Communication 43 (4), p. 51-58.
• Epstein, Seymour, “Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious”, American Psychologist 49 (8), 1994, p.709-724.
• Fischhoff, Baruch, Paul Slovic, Sarah Lichtenstein, Stephen Read, and Barbara Combs, “How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes towards Technological Risks and Benefits”, Policy Sciences 9 (2), 1978, p. 127-152.
• Folkes, Valerie S., “The Availability Heuristic and Perceived Risk”, Jour- nal of Consumer Research 15 (1), 1988, p. 13-23
• Hablemitoglu, Sengul, and Filiz Yildirim, “The Relationship between Perception of Risk and Decision Making Styles of Turkish Universi- ty Students: A Descriptive Study of Individual Differences”, World Applied Sciences Journal 4 (2), 2008, s. 214-224.
• Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions under Risk”, Econometrica 47 (2), 1979, p.313-327.
• Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky, “Choices, Calues, and Frames”, American Psychologist 39 (4), 1984, p. 341-350.
• Kaplan, Stanley, and B. John Garrick. “On the Quantitative Definition of Risk”, Risk Analysis 1 (1), 1981, p. 11-27.
• Knight, Frank H., Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, New York: Dover, 2012.
• Kortenkamp, Katherine V. and Colleen F. Moore, “Psychology of Risk Perception”, Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 2001, p. 1-8, DOI: 10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0689, Ac- cessed Date: 01.06.2015.
• Krimsky, Sheldon and Dominic Golding, Social Theories of Risk, Westport, CT: Praeger-Greenwood, 1992.
• Loewenstein, George F., Elke U. Weber, Christopher K. Hsee, and Ned Welch, “Risk as Feelings,” Psychological Bulletin 127 (2), 2001, p. 267- 286.
• Lundgren, Regina E. and Andrea H. McMakin, Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
• Mazur, Allan, The Dynamics of Technical Controversy, Washington, DC: Communications Press, 1981.
• Mueller, John E., Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them, New York: Free Press, Simon and Schuster, 2006.
• Nelson, Thomas E., Zoe M. Oxley, and Rosalee A. Clawson, “Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects”, Political Behavior 19 (3), 1997, p. 221
• Orhan, Gökhan, “The Politics of Risk Perception in Turkey: Discourse Coalitions in the Case of the Bergama Gold Mine Dispute”, Policy & Politics 34 (4), 2006, p. 691-710.
• Ozdemir, Ozlem, and Cengiz Yilmaz, “Factors Affecting Risk Mitigation Revisited: The Case of Earthquake in Turkey”, Journal of Risk Re- search 14 (1), 2011, p. 17-46.
• Pidgeon, Nick, Christopher Hood, David Jones, Barry Turner, and Rose Gibson, “Risk Perception”, Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group, London: Royal Society, 1992, p. 89-134.
• Pidgeon, Nick, Roger E. Kasperson, and Paul Slovic, The Social Amplifica- tion of Risk, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Power, Michael. The Risk Management of Everything: Rethinking the Politics of Uncertainty, London: Demos, 2004.
• Rayner, Steve, and Robin Cantor, “How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultur- al Approach to Societal Technology Choice”, Risk Analysis 7 (1), 1987, p. 3-9.
• Renn, Ortwin, and Bernd Rohrmann, Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies 13, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2000.
• Rosa, Eugene A., “The Logical Structure of the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF): Metatheoretical Foundations and Policy Implications”, In TheSocial Amflication of Risk, ed. Nick Pidgeon, Roger E. Kasperson, Paul Slovic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 47-.80.
• Rottenstreich, Yuval, and Ran Kivetz, “On Decision Making without Likelihood Judgment”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (1), 2006, p. 74-88.
• Rüstemli, Ahmet, and A. Nuray Karanci, “Correlates of Earthquake Cog- nitions and Preparedness Behavior in a Victimized Population”, The Journal of Social Psychology 139 (1), 1999, p. 91-101.
• Short, James F., “The Social Fabric of Risk: Toward the Social Transfor- mation of Risk Analysis”, American Sociological Review 49(6), 1984, p. 711-25.
• Short, James F., “On Defining, Describing, and Explaining Elephants (and Reactions to Them): Hazards, Disasters, and Risk Analysis”, Mass Emergencies and Disasters 7 (3), 1989, p. 397-418.
• Şimşekoğlu, Özlem, Trond Nordfjærn, and Torbjİrn Rundmo, “Traffic Risk Perception, Road Safety Attitudes, and Behaviors among Road Users: AComparison of Turkey and Norway”, Journal of Risk Research 15 (7), 2012, p. 787-800.
• Sjöberg, Lennart, “Factors in Risk Perception”, Risk Analysis 20 (1), 2000, p. 1-11.
• Sjöberg, Lennart, “Political Decisions and Public Risk Perception”, Relia- bility Engineering & System Safety 72 (2), 2001, p. 115-123.
• Sjöberg, Lennart, Bjİrg-Elin Moen, and Torbjİrn Rundmo, “Explaining Risk Perception”, An Evaluation of the Psychometric Paradigm in Risk Perception Research, Trondheim: Rounde, 2004.
• Slovic, Paul, “Perception of Risk”, Science 236 (4799), 1987, s. 280-285.
• Slovic, Paul, “Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Para- digm”, In Social Theories of Risk, ed. Sheldon Krimsky and Dominic Golding, New York: Praeger, 1992, p. 117-152.
• Slovic, Paul, “The Risk Game”, Journal of Hazardous Materials 86 (1), 2001, p. 17-24.
• Slovic, Paul, “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield”, Risk Analysis, 19 (4), 1999, p. 689-701.
• Slovic, Paul (ed.), The Perception of Risk. London: Routledge, 2000.
• Slovic, Paul, Melissa L. Finucane, Ellen Peters, and Donald G. MacGreg- or, “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Af- fect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality”, Risk Analysis 24 (2), 2004, p. 311- 322.
• Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein, “Why Study Risk Perception?”, Risk Analysis 2 (2), 1982, p. 83-93.
• Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein, “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk”, In Societal Risk Assessment, ed. Rich- ard C. Schwing, Walter A. Albers, New York: Springer, 1980, p. 181
• Slovic, Paul, Ellen Peters, Melissa L. Finucane, and Donald G. MacGreg- or, “Affect, Risk, and Decision Making”, Health Psychology 24 (4), 2005, p. 35-40.
• Slovic, Paul, and Elke U. Weber, “Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events”, Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, Pailisades,
• New York, April 12-13, 2002.
• Sowby, F. D., “Radiation and Other Risks”, Health Physics 11 (9), 1965, p. 879-887.
• Starr, Chauncey, “Social Benefit versus Technological Risk”, In Readings in Risk, ed. Theodore S. Glickman, Michael Gough, New York: Re- sources for the Future, 1990, p. 183-193.
• Sunstein, Cass. R., “Terrorism and Probability Neglect”, The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26 (2/3), 2003, p. 121-136.
• Turhan, Ebru, Yusuf Inandi, and Tacettin Inandi, “Risk Perception, Knowledge and Social Distance of Turkish High School Students about HIV/AIDS”, Journal of Public Health 28 (2), 2006, p. 137-138.
• Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman, “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability”, Cognitive Psychology 5 (2), 1973, p. 207-232.
• Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”, Science 185 (4157), 1974, p. 1124-1131.
• Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice”, Science 211 (4481), 1981, p. 453-458.
• Yüksel, Atila, and Fisun Yüksel, “Shopping Risk Perceptions: Effects on Tourists’ Emotions, Satisfaction and Expressed Loyalty Intentions”, Tourism Management 28 (3),2007, p. 703-713.
• Zajonc, Robert B., “Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need no Infer- ences”, American Psychologist 35 (2), 1980, p. 151-175.