Perceived Acceptability of Risk Analysis as a Decision‐Making Approach

Three methods for making a consumer product safety decision were evaluated on scales relating to their perceived acceptability, logical soundness, completeness, and sensitivity to moral and ethical concerns. Two of the methods were formalized techniques: cost-benefit analysis and risk analysis. The third method involved abiding by standard industry practices. Other factors in the decision-making context were also varied. The results indicated that formalized techniques were preferred over the standard practices method. Within the formalized methods, cost-benefit analysis was judged less acceptable than a comparable method that did not involve making explicit value tradeoffs. All methods were judged more acceptable when they led to improved product safety. Knowledge of consequences did not exert direct effect on judgments, though it did interact significantly with other variables. The results are discussed in terms of judgmental processes that people apply when evaluating decision methods.