ArticleScience advances2022
On the semantic representation of risk.
Article in Science advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analyses of the temporal stability and convergent validity of risk preference measures.Nature human behaviour · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of "naturalness" value-based narrative intervention on vaccination acceptance in two randomized controlled trials.NPJ vaccines · 2026Article
- Measuring individual semantic networks: A simulation study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Mapping Mental Representations With Free Associations: A Tutorial Using the R Package associatoR.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
- Predecisional information search adaptively reduces three types of uncertainty.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Novel embeddings improve the prediction of risk perception.EPJ data science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
What are the defining features of lay people's semantic representation of risk? We contribute to mapping the semantics of risk based on word associations to provide insight into both universal and individual differences in the representation of risk. Specifically, we introduce a mini-snowball word association paradigm and use the tools of network and sentiment analysis to characterize the semantics of risk. We find that association-based representations not only corroborate but also extend those extracted from past survey- and text-based approaches. Crucially, we find that the semantics of risk show universal properties and individual and group differences. Most notably, while semantic clusters generalize across languages, their frequency varies systematically across demographic groups, with older and female respondents showing more negative connotations and mentioning more often certain types of activities (e.g., recreational activities) relative to younger adults and males, respectively. Our work has general implications for the measurement of risk-related constructs by suggesting that "risk" can mean different things to different individuals.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.