Summary
The intention of this study has been to test the hypothesis of “universalism of risk perception” using several student samples from the United States and Japan. The main objective was to reveal hidden patterns of risk perception based on psychometric characteristics among and between the different samples. In particular, the study was designed to demarcate between pancultural and culturally variant features of the cognitive processes of risks. One key element was the careful selection of a comparative culture. A comparison between Japan and a Western culture provides one of the most stringent tests of the hypotheses guiding the research program. Another key element was the development of a comparative instrument, in Phase I, which met a number of language translation criteria and tests of face validity.
Phase II of the research program produced a rich data set with which to test, not only the specified hypothesis, but also to perform sub-analyses and other refinements. This data set was first analyzed using the standard factor-analytic techniques of the standard psychometric paradigm. In general, the findings from the United States-Japan comparison replicated previous results produced within this paradigm — including the cross-cultural results. The cognitive maps produced by this analysis indicated common contours between the Americans and Japanese, but different cognitive content. Without a formal basis for judging whether contour or content should be the criterion for determining which of our hypotheses were supported, the fundamental questions generating the research program remained unresolved.
To resolve them we turned to latent variable modeling in Phase III of the research program, still in progress. Thus far this phase has produced preliminary results on only the sub-set of seven nuclear risks contained in the data set. These results are, nevertheless, promising. We developed a refined, best-fitting model for each culture based upon the nuclear items. What these models seem to be telling us is that Americans and Japanese have similar images of dread and catastrophic potential underlying their perceptions of nuclear risks. But, importantly, the cognitive routes they use to arrive at those images are fundamentally different.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Bentler, P. 1989. EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software, Inc.
Boholm, A. 1996. The Many Faces of Cultural Theory of Risk: Anthropological Misgivings. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Risk Analysis-Europe, Guildford, University of Surrey, UK.
Boholm, A. 1998. Comparative Studies of Risk Perception: A Review of Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Risk Research 1: 135–163.
Brislin, R. 1993. Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Publishers.
Byrne, B. M. 1994. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Covello, V. T. and Kawamura, K. 1988. Cooperation vs. confrontation: A comparison of approaches to environmental risk management in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis 8: 161–175.
Covello, V. T., von Winterfeldt, D. and Slovic, R. 1986. Risk communication: A review of the literature. Risk Abstracts 3: 71–182.
Cvetkovich, C. and Earle, T. C. 1985. Classifying hazardous events. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13: 5–35.
Cvetkovich, G., Vlek, C. and Earle, T. C. 1988. Designing public hazard communication programs about large-scale technologies, in C. Vlek and G. Cvetkovich (Eds.), Social Decision Methods for Large-Scale Technologies. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Deaux, K. and Wrightsman, L. S. 1988. Social Psychology, 5th edition. Pacific Grove: Brooks/ Cole.
Douglas, M. and Wildaysky, A. 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Englander,T., Farago, K., Slovic, P, and Fischhoff, B. 1986. A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social Behaviour 1: 55–66.
Form, W. 1979. Comparative industrial sociology and the convergence hypothesis. Annual Review of Sociology 5: 1–25.
Frane, J. W. and Hill, M. 1976. Factor analysis as a tool for data analysis. Communication Statistics A5 (6): 487–506.
Goszczynzka, M., Tyszka, T. and Slovic, R. 1991. Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4: 179–193.
Heisenberg, W. 1958. The Physicist’s Conception of Nature. Trans. by Arnold J. Pomrtrans. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Hinman, G. W., Rosa, E. A., Kleinhesselink, R.R. and Lowinger, T.C. 1993. Perceptions of Nuclear and Other Risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Analysis 13: 449–455.
Hoshino, K. 1989. Personal communication, National Institute of Police Science, Tokyo, Japan.
Johnson, E. J. and Tversky, A. 1984. Dimensional analysis of risk perceptions. Journal of Exuerimental Psychology: General 113: 53–64.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P and Tversky, A. (Eds.) 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainity: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karpowicz-Lazreg, C. and Mullet, E. 1993. Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis 13: 253–258.
Keown, C. F. (1989). Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans. Risk Analysis 9: 401–405.
Kleinhesselink, R. R. and Rosa, E. A. 1994. Nuclear Trees in a Forest of Hazards: A Comparison of Risk Perceptions between American and Japanese University Students. Pp. 101–119. in Thomas C. Lowinger and George W. Hinman (eds.), Nuclear Power at the Crossroads: Challenges and Prospects for the Twenty-First Century. Boulder, CO: International Research Center for Energy and Economic Development, University of Colorado.
Kleinhesselink, R. R. and Rosa, E. A. 1991. Cognitive Representation of Risk Perceptions: A Comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22: 11–28.
Kraus, N.H. and Slovic, P. 1988. Taxonomic Analysis of Perceived Risk: Modeling Individual and Group Perceptions Within Homogeneous Hazard Domains. Risk Analysis 8: 435–455.
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M. and Combs, B. 1978. Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 4: 551–578.
Loehlin, J. C. 1992. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Analysis. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mazur, A. 1982. The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington DC: Communications Press.
National Research Council. 1989. Improving Risk Communication. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Nyland, L. G. 1993 Risk Perception in Brazil and Sweden. Rhizikon Risk Research Reports No. 15, Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
Renn, O. and Swaton, E. 1984. Psychological and Sociological Approaches to the Study of Risk Perception. Environment International 10: 557–575.
Rosa, E. A. 1998. Metatheoretical Foundations for Post-Normal Risk. Journal of Risk Research 1: 15–44.
Rosa, E. A. and Kleinhesselink, R.R. 1990. Risk Perceptions in Japan and the United States: An Empirical Test of Cultural Influences. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Pacific Sociological Association, Spokane, WA, USA (April).
Rosa, E.A. and Matsuda, N. 1997. The Cognitive Architecture of Risk Perceptions: Pancultural Unity or Cultural Variation? Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Society of Risk Analysis, Washington, DC, USA (December).
Sears, D. O. 1986. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 515–530.
Sjöberg, L. 1995. Explaining risk Perception: an Empirical and Quantitative Evaluation of Cultural Theory. Rhizikon Risk Research Reports No. 22, Stockholm: Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280–285.
Slovic, P. 1986. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis 6: 403–415.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S., 1985. Characterizing perceived risk, Pp. 91–125. in R. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and R. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Teigen, K. II., Brun, W. and Slovic, P. 1988. Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1: 111–130.
Thompson, M., Ellis, R. and Wildaysky, A. 1990. Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rosa, E.A., Matsuda, N., Kleinhesselink, R.R. (2000). The Cognitive Architecture of Risk: Pancultural Unity or Cultural Shaping?. 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_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4891-8_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-4961-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-4891-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive