Cross-Cultural Studies on the Perception and Evaluation of Hazards
In a series of socio-psychological field studies, perceptions and subjective evaluations of risky activities and environmental conditions were investigated in several countries. The aim of this cross-cultural project is to analyze the cognitive structure of judgments about the magnitude and acceptability of risks to which individuals are exposed; to explore disparities between different societal groups; and to compare risk judgments across countries in which risk issues in general as well as particular risk sources (e.g., industrial facilities or natural hazards) have different salience.
In a first series of studies, data were collected in Germany (N=217), New Zealand (N=224) and Australia (N=272). In each country, four groups of respondents were defined: people with a “technological”, “monetarian”, “ecological” or “feminist” orientation. Participants were asked for judgments on 24 hazards (based on a taxonomy) according to 12 risk aspects (derived from a structural risk perception model).
In a second phase, a modified data collection was conducted in China (N=270), and that study was fully repeated in Australia (N=203). Regarding hazards, 12 previously used items and 12 new items were included. The sampling in both countries focused on 3 groups of students (i.e., Geography, Psychology, Engineering) and a group of scientists.
Data comparisons for countries, for societal or professional groups and for types of risks yield a complex picture. Cross-cultural disparities are evident in two ways: groups affiliated with a particular professional, cultural and political orientations differ considerably in their judgment and evaluation of hazards; and considerable cross-national variation in risk perception exists as well. It is also obvious that some hazards are perceived as either more perilous or less severe than epidemiological risk data would suggest.
The results demonstrate the strong influence of socio-psychological factors and the cultural quality of risk evaluations. The findings are significant for a better understanding of people’s subjective risk appraisal and also societal risk controversies. They can be utilized for designing comprehensive risk information, communication and education programs within and across cultural contexts.
This cross-cultural project will be continued and extended, with data collections in Germany and Singapore completed and currently undertaken in Canada and Japan.
KeywordsNuclear Power Plant Risk Perception Risk Communication German Data Coal Power Plant
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bond, M. H. (Ed.) (1996). The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Borcherding, K., Rohrmann, B., & Eppel, T. (1986). A psychological study on the cognitive structure of risk evaluations. In B. Brehmer, H. Jungermann, P. Lourens, & G. Sevon (Eds.), New directions in research on decision making (pp. 245–262 ). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1992). Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 85–100.Google Scholar
- Brody, C. J. (1984). Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces, 63, 209–228.Google Scholar
- Burgemeister, J., & Weber, M. (1993). Risiko und Akzeptanz von Industrieansiedlungen. Zeitschrift fair Betriebswirtschaft, 63, 147–169.Google Scholar
- Chen, H., & Rohrmann, B. (1996). Perceptions of risk of Chinese and Australian students and scientists. Contribution to the International Congress of Psychology, Montreal.Google Scholar
- Conrad, J. (Ed.) (1980). Society, technology and risk assessment. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1991). Risk and culture. Special Issue, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology.Google Scholar
- Douglas, M., & Wildaysky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision and dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Fietkau, H. J., Hassebrauck, M., & Watts, N. (1980). Der internationale Umweltfragebogen Google Scholar
- (IUF): Ein Instrumentarium zur Erfassung umweltbezogener Werte. Berlin: Internationales Institut für Umwelt und Gesellschaft, Report IIVG/80.Google Scholar
- Fischhoff, B. (1994). Acceptable risk: a conceptual proposal. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 5, 1–28.Google Scholar
- Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. L. (1982). Acceptable risk. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
- Gould, L., Gardner, D., DeLuca, D., Tiemann, A, Doob, L., & Stolwijk, J. (1988). Perceptions of technological risks and benefits. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture ‘s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
- Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1988). LISREL (Analysis ofLlnear Structural RELationships) - User’s guide. Chicago: National Educational Resources.Google Scholar
- Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1987). SIMPLIS-A simplified version ofLISREL. Mooresville: Scientific Software Inc.Google Scholar
- Johnson, B. B., & Covello, V. T. (Eds.) (1987). The social and cultural construction of risk. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Jungermann, H., & Slovic, P. (1993). Characteristics of individual risk perception. In BayerischeRueck (Ed.), Risk–a construct. (pp. 85–102 ). München: Knesebeck.Google Scholar
- Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X., & Renn, O. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Progress in developing an integrative framework. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 153–178 ). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Kasperson, R. E., & Stallen, P. M. (Eds.) (1990). Communicating risks to the public. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Keyes, R. (1985). Chancing it: Why we take risks. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
- Lundgren, R. (1994). Risk Communication. Columbus: Batelle Press.Google Scholar
- Maag, G. (1991). Gesellschaftliche Werte. Strukturen, Stabilität und Funktion. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
- Marris, C., Langford, I., & O’Riordan, T. (1996). Integrating sociological and psychological approaches to public perceptions on environmental risks: Detailed results from a questionnaire survey. Research Report. Norwich: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
- Morgan, M. G. (1993). Risk analysis and management. Scientific American, 248, 24–30.Google Scholar
- Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol.2) (pp. 347–412 ). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- National Research Council (USA) (Ed.) (1990). Improving risk communication. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Nyland, L. G. (1993). Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. Stockholm School of Economics: Centre for Risk Research.Google Scholar
- Opwis, K., & May, R. (1985). Determinanten der Risikoakzeptanz bei Umweltproblemen. Forschungsbericht des Psychologischen Instituts Freiburg.Google Scholar
- Rayner, S. (1990). Risk in cultural perspective: Acting under uncertainty. Klewer: Norwell.Google Scholar
- Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Renn, O. (1992b). Concepts of Risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 53–82 ). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Rohrmann, B. (1991). Risks and benefits of individual activities and living conditions - a crosscultural comparison (Research Report). Hamilton/NZ: University of Waikato.Google Scholar
- Rohrmann, B. (1995). Risk perception research: Review and documentation (Studies in Risk Communication vol. 48). Juelich: Research Center Juelich. Revision & Update 1999, Studies vol. 69. (Also published on the WWW; URL = http://www.kfa-juelich.de/mut/hefte/heft69.pdf).
- Rohrmann, B. (1996). Perception and evaluation of risks: Findings for New Zealand and cross-cultural comparisons (Information paper No. 55 ). Canterbury/NZ: Centre for Resource Management, Lincoln University.Google Scholar
- Rohrmann, B (1998). The risk notion: Epistemological and empirical considerations. In R. Melchers & M. Stewart, Integrated Risk Assessment, 39–45. Rotterdam: Balkema.Google Scholar
- Rohrmann, B., & Borcherding, K. (1985). Die Bewertung von Umweltstressoren unter Risiko-Aspekten. In D. Albert (Hg.), Bericht über den 34. Kongreß der DGfP in Wien 1984 (pp. 851854 ). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
- Rowan, K. E. (1991). Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, November, 300–329.Google Scholar
- Schuez, M. (Hrsg.) (1990). Risiko and Wagnis. Die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
- Shapira, Z. (1986). Risk in managerial decision making. Jerusalem: Diss/Hebrew University.Google Scholar
- Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B. (1991). Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. In B. Drottz- Sjöberg (Ed.), Perception of Risk (pp. 141–162 ). Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.Google Scholar
- Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In D. Golding & S. Krimsky (Ed.) Social theories of risk, pp. 117–523. London: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears–understanding risk. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal risk assessment (pp. 181–218 ). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
- Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, & J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous progress: managing the hazards of technology (pp. 91–125 ). Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
- Thompson, M., Ellis, W., & Wildaysky, A. (1990). Cultural theory, or why all that is permanent is bias. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Tiemann, A. R., & Tiemann, J. J. (1985). Cognitive maps of risk and benefit perceptions. In C. Whipple & V. T. Covello (Eds.), Risk analysis in the private sector (pp. 451–468). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
- Tweeddale, H. M. (1994). Uses and limitations of risk assessment. Sydney: A Carre.Google Scholar
- Viscusi, W. K., & Magat, W. A. (1987). Learning about risk: Consumer and worker responses to hazard information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wildaysky, A. (1995). But is it true?. Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Yates, J. F., & Lee, J. W. (Eds.) (1996). Chinese decision making. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 338–351 ). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar