Risk Perception - Other Scale


Risk Perception–Other consists of 17 scenarios depicting aviation situations in which the participants are asked to rate the level of risk present in the situation. Situations are stated in the third person (another pilot). The response scale ranges from 1 (low risk) to 100 (high risk).

Number of Items: 17
Numeric rating from 1 (low risk) to 100 (high risk).


Factor 1 (Delayed Risk) = SUM(Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q11, Q14)/8
Factor 2 (Nominal Risk) = SUM(Q10, Q12, Q13, Q16, Q17)/5
Factor 3 (High Risk) = SUM(Q1, Q2, Q4, Q15)/4

NOTE: Dividing by the number of items is optional. Since it is a linear transformation it has no effect on the correlations of these variables with other criteria.

Factor Composition:

Principal components analysis of a sample of approximately 600 subjects produced an interpretable three-factor solution that accounted for 50% of the variance. The first rotated factor consisted of eight items and was labeled delayed risk, as the items comprising this factor were characterized as involving hazardous situations that did not require an immediate response. The second factor consisted of five items and was labeled nominal risk as the items comprising the factor described normal flight operations and contained no unusual hazards. The third factor consisted of four items and was labeled as immediate high risk as the items comprising the factor involved high-risk situations with high urgency and time pressure


A measure of internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) was computed for each of the scales. These reliability values were .81, .75, and .32, for delayed risk, nominal risk, and immediate high risk, respectively. The low internal consistency value (.32) for the immediate high risk factor indicates that those four items are measuring rather different constructs.

Construct Validity:

See Hunter (2006) for details. The construct validity of the scales was assessed by correlation of the factor scores with several variables. The construct validation measures included (a) three scales from the Aviation Safety Attitude Scale (ASAS; Hunter, 2002a; Hunter, 2004); (b) Situational Judgment Test (SJT; Hunter, 2003); (c) Aviation Safety Locus of Control–Internality (LOC–I; Hunter, 2002b); (d) Hazardous Event Scale (HES; Hunter, 1995); and (e) Thrill and Adventure-Seeking scale (TAS; Zuckerman, 1994). Correlations of the risk perception measures with the construct validation measures generally supported the construct validity of the new measures.

Normative Information:


From Hunter, 2006 M SD N
Delayed risk 73.63 10.92 366
Nominal risk 39.94 15.83 369
Immediate high risk 86.84 9.50 368


Hunter, D. R. (2002). Risk perception and risk tolerance in aircraft pilots (Report DOT/FAA/AM–02/17). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

Hunter, D.R. (2006). Risk perception among general aviation pilots. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16, 135-144.

 Download the scale (Word format)