Psychological Research on Tourists’ Perceptions of Sources of Risks and Danger

Risk perception is a broad research topic in the tourism sector. Terrorism majorly affects the success of the tourism industry, one of the backbone of the economy of some nations across the world. Terrorism instills fear in potential and actual tourists thus the tourists develop the feeling of fear, anxiety and worry towards specific tourist destinations associated with terror attacks. However, the negative perception does not last long. Tourists’ risk perceptions emerge from their own personal experiences, other people’s experiences and information from the media. Risk perception determines the tourists’ desire to visit different destinations around the world. Psychological researchers play a key role in shedding light on the tourists’ perceptions of the risk on various sources of dangers in different tourist destinations. 

Keywords: Tourism, Risk Perception, Psychological Research, Terrorism 

Psychological Research on Tourists’ Perceptions of Sources of Risks and Danger 

Dangers in the tourist destination have been affecting the perceptions of tourists of these destinations. In recent years, as a result of globalization, terrorist networks have a platform to coordinate, prepare and execute cross-border or international attacks; thus, terrorist attacks have increased. Statistics have shown that the tourism industry has been one of the growing sectors of most nations' economy from 1995 to 2010 ( Wolff et al., 2019) . When a country is faced with terror attacks, tourists fear visiting the country and becoming victims of the terror attacks ( Brun et al., 2011) . Psychological researchers measure the emotions of tourists on how they perceive tourism in relation to tourism destinations prone to terrorism. They conduct the cognitive calculations on the risk perspectives of the tourists. They randomly select potential and actual tourists to take part in the study. The participants answered questions which revolved around their feelings on different destinations with the researchers attempting to understand their perceptions of terrorism in tourism. Psychological research works to inform people and increase their understanding of how tourists are affected by terror attacks (Yang & Nair, 2014) . This research is conducted through psychological processes of the individual perception of past experiences with terror attacks while in the tourism sector. The psychological research tries to bring out the cognitive and behavioral effects of tourists' perceptions of terrorism. The threat of terrorism on tourism on a global scale has become increasingly relevant, and no destination of tourists is an exemption. This study analyses how psychological research helps shed light on the tourists' perceptions of the risk of various sources of danger like terrorism. The application of psychological know-how in understanding how terrorism affects the tourism sector is essential. 

Background Study 

Defining Perceived Risk 

The Current State of Affairs 

Risk is described as the sum of people's assessments of the magnitude and likelihood of adverse outcomes ( Wolff et al., 2019) . In the tourism sector, perceived risk definition is varied widely. Some define it as worry, anxiety, nervousness and fear associated with the risk of danger in the tourism destinations ( Wolff et al., 2019) . Others define perceived risk as the total sum of the outcome severity and outcome probability rather as a product of both ( Wolff, et al., 2019) . Tourism risk perception has a tremendous influence on the decision-making behaviors of tourists. Tourists’ desire and intentions are influenced by perceived risk, which is a significant factor influencing consumer decision making. In regard to terrorism, the risk of tourists is subjective ( Holm et al., 2017) . Higher risk perception has a negative effect on tourists' travel intentions and leads to evasive decisions to avoid those destinations (Yang & Nair, 2014) . The beliefs, ideas and impressions of tourists on a tourist destination influence their preference of visiting that place (Yang & Nair, 2014) . Terror attacks reduce the preference of the tourists over the tourist destinations with records of terror attacks. The tourists' risk perceptions with tourist destination are among the influencers of their decision on visiting or revisiting a destination. These perceptions can arise from their own experiences, the experiences of others or information from the media ( Slovic & Peters, 2006) . Terrorism attacks have been occurring in various countries across the world. This has affected the tourism sector of these countries, yet tourism is the backbone of their economy's economy. These countries receive few international tourists who are the source of income for these countries. 

Standard Psychometric Definition of Risk 

The standard psychometric definition of risk is the product of probability of adverse outcomes and the magnitude of outcomes. 

Definitions of risk in the tourism literature 

The summative model is contrary to logic. It means that incidents with adverse effects but no chance of occurring are called threats (Wolff et al., 2019) . According to this model, everything with a possibility of happening or not, and everything that has or does not have consequences, is a risk. 

In the tourism literature, risk is defined as the worry, fear, and feelings of nervousness that tourists have on different travel destinations based on the dangers associated with the destinations. Risk is perceived as a cognitive evaluation other than a feeling ( Fennell, 2017) . Fear and anxiety are strong feelings that have somatic responses ( Fennell, 2017) . Worry is a significant component of anxiety. Risk and worry correspond only moderately since the risk is taken without worrying (Wolff et al., 2019) . Risk equals probability but overemphasizes the outcome. In my opinion, the concept to be adopted is the one that states that perceived risk is characterized as the subjective knowledge on outcome severity weighted by outcome probability. 

The Measurement Of Risk Perceptions And The Effect Of Item Wording 

Subjective risk judgments differ from objective or professional risk assessments and from predicted utility models that have been established by psychometric risk research and the heuristics and biases tradition ( Holm et al., 2017) . These heuristics and assumptions do affect risk perception scores. When creating questionnaires, it's critical to be conscious of these biases; otherwise, methodological artefacts may be misinterpreted as significant findings. 

Affect Heuristic 

Though the perceived risk is not usually classified as a sensation, affect plays a significant role in the subjective assessment of risk, as it does in any evaluation ( Finucane et al., 2000) . People have been shown to respond to an impulse to assess the danger and advantage of the impulse on several occasions ( Finucane et al., 2000) . A positive affective reaction can lead to low risk and high benefit assessment of the stimulus or behavior ( Finucane et al., 2000) . An effective adverse reaction causes the impulse to be rated as having a high risk and low gain. Therefore, risks and benefits are negatively connected to people's minds. However, in the real world, the risk-benefit relationship is optimistic, i.e., the greater the risk a threat presents, the greater the benefits from the hazard that the society has to embrace ( Finucane et al., 2000) . Nuclear power plants, for instance, usually elicit negative affective responses and are thus regarded as high-risk and low-benefit. Despite this, society recognizes the risk of nuclear power plants only because they are highly beneficial ( Finucane et al., 2000) . 

According to the affect heuristic, people who like an activity will offer lower risk ratings than individuals with an issue with the same activity ( Finucane et al., 2000) . When smokers are asked to rate the probability of smoking causing lung cancer, they rate smoking as a low cause of lung cancer. Nonsmokers view smoking as one of the major causes of lung cancer. Since smokers enjoy the act of smoking it causes them to undervalue their dangers ( Finucane et al., 2000) . Asking consumers or participants yields lower risk scores than asking non-participants. 

Impact Bias 

The impact bias is a distinct phenomenon that has an effect on risk scores. Affective forecasting is a well-known phenomenon in which people are inaccurate in predicting their own future emotions (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003) . There is a consistent propensity to exaggerate both the seriousness and the duration of one's potential feelings. Affective forecasting is associated with risk assessment because it involves anticipating potential adverse outcomes and assessing how traumatic these consequences will be (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003) . As a result, the effect of bias influences risks perceptions ( Slovic & Peters, 2006) . People overestimate the severity and resilience of their responses to potential disasters, so they exaggerate the danger of future hazards compared to current hazards. 

According to the impact bias, people may perceive activities as less dangerous when they are engaging in them than when not engaged in them. Hazards that could occur in future are perceived as riskier than hazards encountered at present ( Lepp & Gibson, 2003) . As a result, requesting subjects for their perceptions on the risk of a trip while preparing it could yield higher risk ratings than engaging them while on the trip ( Slovic & Peters, 2006) . When you ask people on the beach about the dangers at the beach, they can give you a lower rating than if you ask them before going to the beach. 

Rosy Retrospection 

Rosy retrospection refers to the memory bias in which people rate occurrences more favourably than they did at the time of their occurrence. When people look back on holiday, they consistent rate the experience higher than they did when they were on it. According to memoria praeteritorum bonorum, the past is seen as good always ( Wolff & Larsen, 2013) . Retrospective risk judgments usually move from prospective ones. People usually believe that the world was safer in the past. 

Requesting participants to provide their perceptions on the risk of a vacation they had in the past is likely to receive lower risk perception than engaging them while on that vacation ( Fuchs et al., 2013) . In combination with the effect bias results, tourists view vacations they had in the past as the best ( Wolff & Larsen, 2013) . They are unable to rate their risk perceptions of the current situation ( Slovic & Peters, 2006) . Vacations in the future are viewed to be the riskiest of them all. This isn't to say that people are taking more dangerous vacations; it's just a result of people's inability to predict and recall their actual emotions ( Wolff & Larsen, 2013) . 

Optimistic bias 

This is where people often overestimate their opportunities to encounter positive events and underestimate their opportunities to encounter adverse events (Gouveia, & Clarke, 2001) . It is among the most well-documented, widespread, and stable prejudices in psychology, with evidence from various approaches and domains (Gouveia, & Clarke, 2001) . Sex, race, ethnicity, age, and even species have all been linked to optimistic errors ( Larsen et al., 2017) . For instance, heavy smokers think they stand a chance of not getting lung cancer than the average smoker (Gouveia, & Clarke, 2001) . In tourism, tourists view their risks to be lower than the risk for the average tourist (Gouveia, & Clarke, 2001) . They also believe that other tourists worry a lot about the travel challenges. Some researchers measure perceived risks by requesting the tourists to explain how others evaluate a hazard (Gouveia, & Clarke, 2001) . 

Unpacking Effect 

The unpacking effect is the act to view the prospect of the whole as lower than the total of its parts (Van Boven & Epley, 2003) . When it comes to risk judgments, the unpacking effect means that more broadly described incidents are categorized as more dangerous than events that are not broadly described (Van Boven & Epley, 2003) . Tourists would place a lower priority on "unwanted events at the beach" than "unwanted events like a sunburn at the beach." Subjective risk scores can grow as a result of breaking down a general risk into its constituents ( Holm et al., 2017) . This, of course, must be taken into account when creating questionnaires and analyzing results from different studies. 

Home Is Safer Than Abroad Bias 

People consider their home countries to be less dangerous than other nations, regardless of where "home" is ( Wolff, Larsen, & Øgaard, 2019) . All the tourists from different places across the globe agreed on the riskiness of all destinations ( Wolff, Larsen, & Øgaard, 2019) . But, they differed when it came to their homes: tourists considered their home country a very secure and safe destination, even in contrast to what everyone else thought ( Wolff, Larsen, & Øgaard, 2019) . In terms of risk perception, this means that domestic tourists would have lower risk scores than foreign tourists for a variety of hazards. Germans are more likely to be afraid of being eaten by a shark than Australians while in Australia. ( Wolff, Larsen, & Øgaard, 2019) . 

Scale Development: Tourist Worry Scale TWS 

Worry 

State Versus Trait Worry 

State worry is defined as the act of getting worried over a specific event, like worrying about an exam (Larsen & Brun, 2011) . In contrast, a trait of worry is a personal characteristic of an individual who worries about everything (Larsen & Brun, 2011) . Actual tourists usually worry less than potential tourists (Larsen & Brun, 2011) . 

Tourist Worry Scale 

Two students' samples were taken, and 20 item questionnaires were given twice to check the test-retest validity. A tourist-filled sample to determine the nomological validity of all samples was filled with risk acceptance, travel desire, trait worry, worry about different hazards, and risk perceptions of different hazards (Larsen et al., 2009) . Refer to table 1 in the appendix for the Tourist Worry Scale. 

Nomological Validity 

Trait worry: weak to moderate 

Risk perception of different destinations: weak to moderate 

Worry regarding different destination: moderate 

Desire to travel: none to weak 

Risk acceptance: none to weak 

Actual and potential tourists don't worry much—however, potential tourists who are tourist worry more than actual tourists (Larsen & Brun, 2011) . 

Vacation in General Vs Specific Vacation 

The mean scores for the TWS versions are comparable, although a vacation in general TWS corresponds more with trait worry than specific vacation TWS ( Larsen et al., 2009) . The correlation of specific vacation TWS is related to that of original TWS ( Larsen et al., 2009) . 

Terrorism and tourism 

Before the Iraq war (2003), terror bombs in Madrid (2004), terror bomb in London (2005) and terror bomb in Utoya (2011), tourists did not worry and have negative risk perceptions about visiting the tourist sites in these regions (Larsen & Brun, 2011) . However, after the terror incidences, the tourists started to have worry and risk judgements about the tourist destinations (Larsen & Brun, 2011) . The terror acts have led to a decline in the number of tourists which might be temporary, minor or moderate. Tourists' risk perception usually influences their travel desire, choice and anxiety ( Larsen et al., 2011) . 

Worry Before And After The 2005 Terror Bombs In London 

Before the bombing in London in 2005, the were several tourists Mallorca. The number of tourists decreased drastically post the bombing, but after some months, new tourists started to flood Mallorca ( Larsen et al., 2009) . There was no significant change in the number of tourists visiting Mallorca after and before the bombings ( Larsen et al., 2009) . The TWS mean score did not change. The score of individual items was constant in the TWS apart from the item determining worry regarding acts of terror of war (Larsen et al., 2009) . The result of TWS supported the stability of the TWS's stability and sensitivity. Refer to table 2 in the appendix for the different tourist worries and the mean and standard deviation for the different worries. 

Iraq War 

The tourists in Iraq filled out questionnaires on the state of affairs before and after the war in Iraq in 2003. The study focused on the travel desire and the riskiness of 54 tourist destinations in Iraq ( Larsen et al., 2009) . From the questionnaires, the overall travel desire of the participants declined after the war. The risk judgements of the tourists increased in some holiday forms, mainly in the Middle East ( Kozak et al., 2007) . 

Madrid 

Students in Madrid filled questionnaires about their perceptions of the tourism industry before and after the bombings ( Larsen et al., 2009) . The participants were expected to rate on their travel desire and the riskiness of 54 destinations ( Larsen et al., 2009) . The questionnaire captured the participant's insight into whether Madrid's life was more safe or dangerous after the war. The risk judgements of the participants on tourism in Madrid remained stable. Over 60% of the study participants stated that life in Madrid became more dangerous after the war. 

London 

Before the bombings, tourists at Mallorca were issued with questionnaires to fill. After the bombings, a new sample of tourists was given the same questionnaire to fill out ( Wolff & Larsen, 2017) . The tourists rated 4-holiday forms for riskiness on different hazards such as terrorism, petty crime, infectious disease and food poisoning. The tourists also rated nine different particular destinations on their riskiness. 

From the tourists' ratings, the riskiness of the different holiday forms remained stable before and after the bombings. From the findings, a third of the specific destinations increased in their riskiness after the bombings ( Kozak et al., 2007) . London was rated to have been safer before the bombings. 

Summary 

Generally, the tourists' desire to travel and their risk judgements are not significantly affected by terrorist attacks ( Larsen et al., 2011) . The specific destinations that get immensely affected by terrorism are riskier and are less desired by the tourists as their ideal tourists' destinations even after the attacks ( Larsen et al., 2011) . Participants displayed "rosy retrospection" in that they viewed the world as less dangerous in the past than it is today and will be in the coming years (Wolff & Larsen, 2013) . 

Flux and Permanence of Risk Perceptions 

A research study was carried out to monitor the perceived risk of Norwegian counties and international respondents. The study stretched from 2004-2017 and compared the risk perceptions of the tourists concerning different tourist attraction for the ten years (Wolff & Larsen, 2020) . The study had 10,000 participants who had visited Norway. The participants were from 89 different countries, and they filled out questionnaires on their risk perceptions of the different tourist attraction in Norway (Wolff & Larsen, 2020) . 52% of the participants were females. Data was collected across the years, which allowed the researchers to compare the perceived risk over time. Findings from the study showed that although the absolute risk judgements were increased over the years, the relative risk judgements were unchanging. The research findings also supported the "home-is-safer-than-abroad-bias" as the interviewed tourists viewed their home countries being one of the safest destinations despite where their homes were located ( Kozak et al., 2007) . The Norwegian tourists perceived their country to be a safe and secure tourist destination than other destinations out of Norway. The wide range of case studies overburdens tourism research because of the many tourist destinations in the world, which can be studied separately. Tourism research is overburdened because it is difficult to generalize findings regarding the tourists' risk perceptions of one destination. 

Methods and Sampling 

2004: N = 1867 89 Countries 

2010: N = 718 52% female 

2011: N = 1134 Age: M= 41.51 SD =16.92 

2012: N = 4002 

2013: N = 2104 

2015: N = 1550 

2016: N = 510 

2017: N = 1526 

Destination Risk 

Subjective Risk for Different Destinations 

Tourists have different perceptions of different destinations. Some destinations are perceived to be riskier than others. The perceived risk of different destinations in Norway, Germany, USA, Turkey, London, Spain, Europe, Israel, Switzerland, Nordic Countries, and Austria was rated 1 (low risk) to 7 (high risk). The graph below shows the different ratings of tourism in different destinations. 

Graph 1 

Risk Judgements for Various Destinations by Nationality of Respondent 

The risk judgement of tourists on various destinations is sometimes influenced by the nationality of the tourist. This is evident from the results of the study showing the different level of risk judgements of tourists from different nationalities on the same tourist destination. The graph below shows the risk judgment ratings for different tourist destinations based on the participants’ nationality. 

Graph 2 

Risk for Hazards 

Currently, tourist destinations have tried to mitigate the tourist attractions' risks by adopting good security measures and good health practices (Cui et al., 2016) . The tourists' destinations management team collaborates with the government to ensure that they offer the best services to their consumers in terms of safety, health, and fun (Wolff & Larsen, 2014) . Below is a graphical representation of this information. 

Subjective Risk for Different Hazards 

Tourists have different risk perceptions on a destination depending on the dangers associated with the destination such as terrorism, infections, food poisoning, violence and traffic accidents. Tourists view some of the dangers as being risky than others. This depends on the individual feelings of the tourists. Check the graph below for the participants’ subjective risks for the different hazards. 

Graph 3 

Analysis 

From the ratings of perceived risk on different countries, most tourists perceive Norway as the safest tourist destination compared to other countries (Wolff & Larsen, 2014) . From the ratings of the subjective risk of different health hazards, it is evident that terrorism risk is low, and the tourists do not worry a lot about it compared to other hazards (Chien et al., 2017). The absolute risk perceptions of different destinations usually increase over the years while the relative risk perceptions remain constant. ( Holm et al., 2017) . Tourists have the same discerning about the riskiness of different destinations (Wolff & Larsen, 2014) . But, their perceptions differ in the biased perception that individuals have that their home areas are safer than other areas no matter where their homes are situated. 

Risk 

Terror Risk, Destination Risk, Terror Worry 

Terror risk is the consideration of tourists on how risky a destination can be in terrorism and war (Fuchs, & Reichel, 2006) . Destination risk is the consideration of tourists on how risky a specific tourist destination can be in unwanted events (Fuchs, & Reichel, 2006) . Worry terror is the act of a tourist lamenting the possibilities of experiencing terrorism or war while at any tourist destination (Larsen & Brun, 2011) . Graph 4 below has data from the study on determination of whether Norway has been more or less dangerous after the Utoya massacre in 2011. The study carried research on the level of risks in the Norway and Nomadic countries. The findings are presented in graph 5 attached below. Terror attacks and war has been among the sources of risk perceptions of the tourists in Norway as a tourist destination. The graphs 6 and 7 below present the results on the risk of terrorism and war in Norway. 

Graph 4 

Graph 5 

Graph 6 

Graph 7 

Tourists Worries about acts of terror or war in Norway 

Tourists worry about others more than they worry about themselves. They believe that others are more susceptible to danger more than them. Although terrorism results to negative perception of tourists on destinations, people still worry about the dangers but they visit the destinations after the heat of danger has subsidized. The graph below shows the various worries that acts of terror and war elicits among tourists in Norway 

Analysis 

From the findings of the study, the tourist has a relatively low-risk perception and worries concerning terror. Tourists have an optimistic bias and believe that others are at risk more than them ( Kozak et al., 2007) . Risk perceptions were constant in Norway up to 2011 during the massacre of Utoya. After the incidence, the tourists risk perceptions declined in 2012. Tourists believe that after the incidence of Utoya, Norway has been less dangerous, and this is the case of the world in general. 

But Why Earth? 

Gamblers Fallacy 

The Gambler's Fallacy assumes that a "run" or "streak" of a particular outcome reduces the likelihood of experiencing the outcome again on the subsequent trial. One of the biases or flaws inherent in people's perceptions of randomness is the Gambler's Fallacy (Wolff & Larsen, 2017) . Gamblers fallacy in tourism states that random events reduce the perceived probability of that event happening again ( Wolff & Larsen, 2017) . For this study, the Gamblers Fallacy will be needed to fulfil two conditions: where an incident has a very low base-rate and where the incidence is viewed as a random phenomenon (Wolff & Larsen, 2017) . Tourists have different risk perceptions on the same destinations because some believe that the dangers that randomly happened in those destinations are less likely to happen again. While other believe that these dangers are more likely to happen in these destinations. The different views of the participants determine their perception of a particular destination whether positive or negative. 

Experiment 

The study explores the terror baserate in the ETA(Spain), Utoya, US-gun downs and Israel. Terrorism attacks are manifested as a result of political issues. The political condition in the four regions in the case study is not entirely stable and is prone to terrorism attacks due to differences in politics. People who have visited or are planning to visit these destinations were interviewed on their perception on how risky the destinations are, the risk of the destination in relation to terror and their worries about terrorism in the destinations. The terror base rate of the four destination was labeled as either low or high. The degree of organization of the terror attacks also affected the magnitude of the act and the risk perception of the tourists. Graph 9 and 10 below shows the level of terror baserate and degree of organization in the four regions. 

Graph 9 

Graph 10 

Summing Up 

Norway is believed to be a safer country as compared to other counties. Terror attacks are perceived to elicit low or minor to moderate perceived risk for tourists' destination ( Fuchs, & Reichel, 2006) . The gambler's fallacy may not explain the decline of the risk perception after the 22 nd of July (Wolff & Larsen, 2014) . The measure of frequency and level of the organization is used to illustrate the taxonomy, which suggests the countries that will be viewed as safer where a country with both criteria will possess a greater perceived risk (Lepp &Gibson, 2003) . Secondly, the taxonomy suggests which kind of terrorism will have the greatest or smallest impact on risk perceptions ( Williams & Baláž, 2015) . Terrorism impact will be most significant where the attack is organized and happens where terror is infrequent. Terrorism impacts are most minor where the attack is not organized. 

Predictions 

The risk perceptions grow logarithmically according to the Weber-Fechner law ( Williams & Baláž, 2015) . Single incidences are usually viewed as random rather than reoccurring incidences ( Williams & Baláž, 2015) . Incidences that do not occur frequently usually have little impact on risk perceptions (Wolff, & Larsen, 2020) . 

The taxonomy suggests that changes are most remarkable when terrorism is organized and hits where it was infrequent (Wolff, & Larsen, 2020) . The prospect theory and the gambler's fallacy can be used together to determine the best prediction about risk perception ( Williams & Baláž, 2015) . 

References 

Brun, W., Wolff, K., & Larsen, S. (2011). Tourist worries after terrorist attacks: Report from a field experiment. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism , 11 (3), 387-394. 

Chien, P. M., Sharifpour, M., Ritchie, B. W., & Watson, B. (2017). Travelers’ health risk perceptions and protective behavior: A psychological approach. Journal of Travel Research , 56 (6), 744-759. 

Cui, F., Liu, Y., Chang, Y., Duan, J., & Li, J. (2016). An overview of tourism risk perception. Natural Hazards , 82 (1), 643-658. 

Fennell, D. A. (2017). Towards a model of travel fear. Annals of Tourism Research , 66 , 140-150. 

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of behavioral decision making , 13 (1), 1-17. 

Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2006). Tourist destination risk perception: The case of Israel. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing , 14 (2), 83-108. 

Fuchs, G., Uriely, N., Reichel, A., & Maoz, D. (2013). Vacationing in a terror-stricken destination: Tourists’ risk perceptions and rationalizations. Journal of Travel Research , 52 (2), 182-191. 

Gouveia, S. O., & Clarke, V. (2001). Optimistic bias for negative and positive events. Health Education . 

Holm, M. R., Lugosi, P., Croes, R. R., & Torres, E. N. (2017). Risk-tourism, risk-taking and subjective well-being: A review and synthesis. Tourism Management , 63 , 115-122. 

Kozak, M., Crotts, J. C., & Law, R. (2007). The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research , 9 (4), 233-242. 

Larsen, S., & Brun, W. (2011). ‘I am not at risk–typical tourists are’! Social comparison of risk in tourists. Perspectives in Public Health , 131 (6), 275-279. 

Larsen, S., Brun, W., & Øgaard, T. (2009). What tourists worry about–Construction of a scale measuring tourist worries. Tourism Management , 30 (2), 260-265. 

Larsen, S. V. E. I. N., Doran, R. O. U. V. E. N., & Wolff, K. A. T. H. A. R. I. N. A. (2017). How psychology can stimulate tourist experience studies. Visitor experience design , 5 , 13-29. 

Larsen, S., Brun, W., øgaard, T., & Selstad, L. (2011). Effects of sudden and dramatic events on travel desire and risk judgments. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism , 11 (3), 268-285. 

Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Annals of tourism research , 30 (3), 606-624. 

Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current directions in psychological science , 15 (6), 322-325. 

Williams, A. M., & Baláž, V. (2015). Tourism risk and uncertainty: Theoretical reflections. Journal of Travel Research , 54 (3), 271-287. 

Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. 

Wolff, K., & Larsen, S. (2020). Frequency and randomness predict changes in perceived risk. Annals of Tourism Research , 103075. 

Wolff, K., & Larsen, S. (2013). Tourist worries–Here and now vs. there and then: The effect of item wording in the Tourist Worry Scale. Tourism Management , 35 , 284-287. 

Wolff, K., & Larsen, S. (2014). Can terrorism make us feel safer? Risk perceptions and worries before and after the July 22nd attacks. Annals of Tourism Research , 44 , 200-209. 

Wolff, K., & Larsen, S. (2017). A taxonomy of terror-about the effect of different kinds of terror on risk perceptions. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism , 17 (2), 111-128. 

Wolff, K., Larsen, S., & Øgaard, T. (2019). How to define and measure risk perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research , 79 , 102759. 

Van Boven, L., & Epley, N. (2003). The unpacking effect in evaluative judgments: When the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 39 (3), 263-269. 

Yang, C. L., & Nair, V. (2014). Risk perception study in tourism: Are we really measuring perceived risk?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 144 , 322-327.