Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Cross-Cultural Risk Perception pp 103–143Cite as

Cross-Cultural Studies on the Perception and Evaluation of Hazards

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Technology, Risk, and Society ((RISKGOSO,volume 13))

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Atman, C. J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1994). Designing risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes (part 1). RiskAnalysis, 14, 779–788.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M. (1989). Effective risk communication. The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1991). Risk and culture. Special Issue, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk–An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social issues, 48, 21–37.

    Article  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 

  • Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1997). Culture, cosmopolitanism, and risk management. Risk Analysis, 17, 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W., & Winterfeldt, D. v. (1987). Public values in risk debates. Risk Analysis, 7, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1991). Human values, global self-esteeem, and belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 59, 83–106.

    Article  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 

  • Fischer, G. W., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Nair, I., & Lave, L. B. (1991). What risks are people concerned about? Risk Analysis, 11, 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1994). Acceptable risk: a conceptual proposal. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 5, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137–146.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (1993). Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 14, 183–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. L. (1982). Acceptable risk. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goszczynska, M., Tyszka, T., & Slovic, P. (1991). Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 179–193.

    Article  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 

  • Heimer, C. A. (1988). Social structure, psychology, and the estimation of risk. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 491–519.

    Article  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 

  • Jianguang, Z. (1994). Environmental hazards in the Chinese public’s eyes. Risk Analysis, 14, 163–169.

    Article  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 

  • Kistler, E., & Jaufmann, D. (Hg.) (1990). Mensch - Gesellschaft - Technik. Wiesbaden: Leske + Budrich.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuyper, H., & Vlek, C. (1984). Contrasting risk judgements among interest groups. Acta Psychologica, 56, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, L. L. (1992). Risk perception and the perceived public. In D. W. Bromley & K. Segerson (Eds.), The social response to environmental risk (pp. 57–74 ). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  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 

  • Maloney, M.P., Ward, M.O., Braucht, C.N. (1985) A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psychologist, 30, 787–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33, 1401–1418.

    Article  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 

  • McCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Science, 36, 422–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels, T. L., & Gregory, R. S. (1991). A framework for structuring cross-cultural research in risk and decision making. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 22, 103–128.

    Article  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 

  • Pilisuk, M., Parks, S. H., & Hawkes, G. (1987). Public perception of technological risk. The Social Science Journal, 24, 403–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prester, G., Rohrmann, B., & Schellhammer, E. (1987). Environmental evaluations and participation activities–A social-psychological field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 749–785.

    Article  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. (1992a). Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 465–519.

    Article  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. (1994). Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and crossnational comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 150–163.

    Article  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 

  • Rohrmann, B., & Chen, H. (1999). Risk perception in China and Australia: an exploratory crosscultural study. Journal of Risk Research 2 (3), 219–241.

    Article  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 

  • Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13, 413–420.

    Article  CAS  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 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1998). Worry and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 18, 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perceptions: An empirical evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 7, 113–130.

    Article  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. (1982). Why study risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2, 83–93.

    Article  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 

  • Sokolowska, J., & Tyszka, T. (1995). Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks: Why are poor countries less concerned? Risk Analysis, 15, 733–744.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.

    Article  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 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tse, D.K., Lee, K., Vertinsky, I., & Wehrung, D.A. (1988). Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives’ choice, decisiveness and risk adjustment in international marketing. Journal of Marketing 52, 81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tweeddale, H. M. (1994). Uses and limitations of risk assessment. Sydney: A Carre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, E. (1995). The significance of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity for the risk communication process. Risk Analysis, 15, 169–180.

    Article  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 

  • Winterfeldt, D. v., John, R. S., & Borcherding, K. (1981). Cognitive components of risk ratings. Risk Analysis, 1, 277–287.

    Article  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Bernd Rohrmann

Authors
  1. Bernd Rohrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Technology Assessment, Stuttgart, Germany

    Ortwin Renn

  2. University of Melbourne, Australia

    Bernd Rohrmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rohrmann, B. (2000). Cross-Cultural Studies on the Perception and Evaluation of Hazards. In: Renn, O., Rohrmann, B. (eds) Cross-Cultural Risk Perception. Technology, Risk, and Society, vol 13. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4891-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4891-8_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-4961-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-4891-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation