本の詳細
形式
ペーパーバック
言語
英語
公開されました
Jan 1, 1983
出版社
Division of Research, Harvard Business School
説明
In exploring the complexities of risk assessment, the work of Paul Slovic illuminates the intricate interplay between response modes, framing, and information processing. This study delves into how individuals interpret and respond to risks based not just on the facts presented but also on the manner in which those facts are framed. Slovic's analysis offers a nuanced understanding of human behavior in decision-making scenarios, highlighting the psychological underpinnings that affect perceptions of risk.
Through a series of experiments and theoretical discussions, the author examines critical questions about the effectiveness of different communication strategies in conveying risk information. By dissecting various response modes, readers gain insight into why people often react differently to the same risk, depending on how it is presented. This exploration opens up avenues for improving risk communication across diverse fields such as public health, environmental policy, and financial decision-making.
As the narrative unfolds, Slovic challenges conventional wisdom, prompting readers to reconsider their assumptions about rationality in risk assessment. The work not only contributes to the academic discourse but also provides practical implications for practitioners tasked with conveying complex information in a way that resonates with diverse audiences.
Through a series of experiments and theoretical discussions, the author examines critical questions about the effectiveness of different communication strategies in conveying risk information. By dissecting various response modes, readers gain insight into why people often react differently to the same risk, depending on how it is presented. This exploration opens up avenues for improving risk communication across diverse fields such as public health, environmental policy, and financial decision-making.
As the narrative unfolds, Slovic challenges conventional wisdom, prompting readers to reconsider their assumptions about rationality in risk assessment. The work not only contributes to the academic discourse but also provides practical implications for practitioners tasked with conveying complex information in a way that resonates with diverse audiences.