Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2017, Vol. 25 Issue (2) : 358-369     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.00358
Regular Articles |
Public risk perception of terror attacks
LI Kai; GUO Yongyu; YANG Shenlong
(School of Psychology, Central China Normal University; Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Ministry of Education, and Hubei Human Development and Mental Health Key Laboratory, Wuhan 430079, China)
Download: PDF(327 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    

Risk perception of terror attacks refers to assessments of the likelihood, potential impacts, and subjective feelings of terror attacks. Unlike the study of other risks, the hazard of terrorism by its very nature is manmade, making it difficult to determine when, where, and what type of attack may occur. The purpose of the present paper is to review three main frameworks which have been proposed to study risk perception of terror attacks, namely, the psychometric paradigm, cultural theory, and the social amplification of risk. Then, key factors influencing humans’ risk perception of terror attacks were reviewed, including media, individual differences, and emotions. Based on this research, the paper concludes that further studies should try to develop standard tools to measure the risk perception of terror attacks, and investigate the mechanisms behind the risk perception of terror attacks. Just as crucial, research specific to the context of China is necessary.

Keywords terrorism      risk perception      the psychometric paradigm      culture theory      the social amplification of risk     
Corresponding Authors: GUO Yongyu, E-mail:   
Issue Date: 15 February 2017
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
LI Kai
GUO Yongyu
YANG Shenlong
Cite this article:   
LI Kai,GUO Yongyu,YANG Shenlong. Public risk perception of terror attacks[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(2): 358-369.
URL:     OR
[1] LYU Xiaokang, LIU Hongzhi, FU Chunye. Risk perception of medical information[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(8): 1307-1324.
[2] WANG Xinjian, ZHANG Huijuan, WU Di, LV Xiaokang.  Cultural influences on individual risk perception: Cultural cognition theory’s explanation[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(8): 1251-1260.
[3] XIANG Peng; GENG Liuna; ZHOU Kexin; CHENG Xiao. Adverse effects and theoretical frameworks of air pollution: An environmental psychology perspective[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(4): 691-700.
[4] LI Aimei; TAN Lei; SUN Hailong; Xiong Guanxing; Pan Jiyang. The effect of sleep deprivation on risky choice: A dual-process models approach[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(5): 804-814.
[5] LI Bin; XU Fuming; WANG Wei; ZHANG Hui; LUO Hanbing. Decision Making Processing and Individual Differences: The Perspective of Fuzzy-trace Theory[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(2): 316-324.
[6] ZHANG Hui;XU Fuming;LI Bin;LUO Hanbing;ZHENG Qiuqiang. Risk Perception Based on Climate Change[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(9): 1677-1685.
[7] Chen Yi-Wen;Ma Ji-Wei. E-commerce Consumers Purchase Decision and Its Influencing Factors[J]. , 2012, 20(1): 27-34.
[8] SHI Wei;JIA Feng-Xiang. A Review on the Psychology of Suicide Terrorism[J]. , 2011, 19(9): 1378-1386.
[9] JIA Feng-Xiang;SHI Wei. A Review on Terrorism from the Perspective of Terrorists[J]. , 2010, 18(10): 1660-1667.
[10] Zhang Shuoyang,Chen Yiwen,Wang Erping. RISK PERCEPTION IN CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY[J]. , 2004, 12(02): 256-263.
Full text



Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech