Advertisement

Risk Analysis

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 635–647 | Cite as

A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm

  • Claire Marris
  • Ian H. Langford
  • Timothy O'Riordan
Article
  • 228 Downloads

Abstract

This paper seeks to compare two frameworks which have been proposed to explain risk perceptions, namely, cultural theory and the psychometric paradigm. A structured questionnaire which incorporated elements from both approaches was administered to 129 residents of Norwich, England. The qualitative risk characteristics generated by the psychometric paradigm explained a far greater proportion of the variance in risk perceptions than cultural biases, though it should be borne in mind that the qualitative characteristics refer directly to risks whereas cultural biases are much more distant variables. Correlations between cultural biases and risk perceptions were very low, but the key point was that each cultural bias was associated with concern about distinct types of risks and that the pattern of responses was compatible with that predicted by cultural theory. The cultural approach also provided indicators for underlying beliefs regarding trust and the environment; beliefs which were consistent within each world view but divergent between them. An important drawback, however, was that the psychometric questionnaire could only allocate 32% of the respondents unequivocally to one of the four cultural types. The rest of the sample expressed several cultural biases simultaneously, or none at all. Cultural biases are therefore probably best interpreted as four extreme world views, and a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies would generate better insights into who might defend these views in what circumstances, whether there are only four mutually exclusive world views or not, and how these views are related to patterns of social solidarity, and judgments on institutional trust.

Risk perceptions cultural theory psychometric paradigm 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichetenstein, “Characterizing Perceived Risk,” in R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser C. and Kasperson J. X. (eds.) Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1985).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1982).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Thompson, R. Ellis, and A. Wildavsky, Cultural Theory (Westview Press, Boulder, 1990).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Rayner, “Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis,” in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Praeger, Westport, 1992), pp. 83–115.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Slovic, “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield,” in M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, and K. Wade-Benzoni (eds.), Psychological Perspectives to Environment and Ethics in Management (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1996).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, “How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits,” Policy Stud. 9, 127–152 (1978).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Slovic, “Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm,” in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk (Praeger, Westport, 1992), pp. 117–152.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Turner and B. Wynne, “Risk Communication,” in J. Durant (ed.), Biotechnology in Public: A Review of Recent Research (Science Museum, London, 1992), pp. 109–141.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. T. Gardner and L. C. Gould, “Public Perception of the Risks and Benefits of Technology,” Risk Anal. 9, 225–242 (1989).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. M. Harding and R. Eiser, “Characterizing the Perceived Risks and Benefits of Some Health Issues,” Risk Anal. 4, 131–141 (1984).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Marris, I. Langford, and T. O'Riordan, “Exploring the Psychometric Paradigm: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses,” Risk Anal. 17.3, 303–312 (1997).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Trumbo, “Examining Psychometrics and Polarization in a Single-Risk Case Study,” Risk Anal. 16, 429–438 (1996).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Marris, A. Simpson, and T. O'Riordan, Redefining the Cultural Context of Risk Perceptions, Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis (Europe), Stuttgart, University of East Anglia, Norwich (1995).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Rohrmann, Risk Perception Research: Review and Documentation, Programme Group Men, Environment, Technology, KFA Research Centre, Jülich, Germany (1995.)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flynn J., Slovic P., and Mertz C.K. Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks. Risk Anal. 14(6), 1101–1108 (1994).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Deitz, P. C. Stern, and R. W. Pycroft, “Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk,” Sociol. Forum 41, 47–70 (1989).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. R. Freudenburg and S. K. Pastor, “NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the Syndromes,” J. Soc. Issues 48(4), 39–61 (1992).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. R. Freudenburg, C.-L. Coleman, J. Gonzales, and C. Hageland, “Media Coverage of Hazard Events: Analyzing the Assumptions,” Risk Anal. 16, 31–42. (1996).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    O. Renn, W. J. Burns, and J. X. Kasperson, “The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Observations,” J. Soc. Issues 48, 137–160 (1992).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Kasperson, O. Renn, P. Slovic, H. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. Kasperson, and S. Ratick, “The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,” Risk Anal. 8, 177–187 (1988).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Douglas, “Cultural Bias,” in In the Active Voice (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1982), pp. 183–254.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Schwarz and M. Thompson, Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice (Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, 1990).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Boholm, “Risk Perception and Social Anthropology: Critique of Cultural Theory,” Ethnos 61, 64–84 (1996).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Sjöberg, Factors in Risk Perception. (Centre for Risk Research, University of Stockholm, Sweden, 1996).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Gross and S. Rayner, Measuring Culture: A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social Organization (Columbia University Press, New York, 1985).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Rayner, “Management of Radiation Hazards in Hospitals: Plural Rationalities in a Single Institution,” Soc. Stud. Sci. 16, 573–591 (1986).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Rayner and R. Cantor, “How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice,” Risk Anal. 7, 3–10 (1987).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Dake, “Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk: An Analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases,” J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 22, 61–82 (1991).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. Dake, “Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk,” J. Soc. Issues 48, 21–37 (1992).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    K. Dake and A. Wildavsky, “Individual Differences in Risk Perception and Risk-Taking Preferences,” in B. J. Garrick and W. C. Gekler (eds.), The Analysis, Communication, and Perception of Risk (Plenum Press, New York, 1991), pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Douglas, Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1986).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    B. B. Johnson, “Risk and Culture Research: Some Cautions,” J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 22, 141–149 (1991).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C. Marris, I. Langford, and T. O'Riordan, Integrating Sociological and Psychological Approaches to Public Perceptions of Environmental Risks: Detailed Results from a Questionnaire Survey, CSERGE Working Paper GEC 96–07, Centre for Social and Economic Research into the Global Environment, Norwich (1996).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    K. Dake and M. Thompson, “The Meanings of Sustainable Development: Household Strategies for Managing Needs and Resources,” in S. D. Wright, T. Dietz, R. Borden, G. Young, and G. Guagnano (eds.), Human Ecology: Crossing Boundaries. The Society for Human Ecology, (Fort Collins, Co. 1993), pp. 421–436.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    H. C. Jenkins-Smith, “Stigma Models: Testing Hypotheses of How Images of Nevada Are Acquired and Values Are Attached to Them, Unpublished manuscript, University of New Mexico, Alberquerque (1994).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Brenot, and S. Bonnefous, “Approche Socio-culturelle de la Perception des Risques (Institut de Protection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France, 1995).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    L. Sjöberg, Explaining Risk Perception: An Empirical and Quantitative Evaluation of Cultural Theory, Rhizikon: Risk Research Reports, No. 22, Center for Risk Research, University of Stockholm, Sweden (1995).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    T. O'Riordan, C. Marris, and I. Langford, “Images of Science Underlying Public Perceptions of Risk,” in J. Ashworth, and C. Sanford (eds.), Risk, Science and Policy (Royal Society, London, 1997).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A. C. D. Simpson, Integrating Public and Scientific Judgements into a Tool Kit for Managing Food-Related Risks, Stage III: Pilot Test, Research Report No. 23, Centre for Environmental and Risk Management, Norwich (1994).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    P. Slovic, “Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy,” Risk Anal. 13, 675–682 (1993).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J. R. Eiser, Attitudes, Chaos and the Connectionist Mind (Blackwell, Oxford, 1994).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    B. Wynne, C. Waterton, and R. Grove-White, Public Perceptions and the Nuclear Industry in West Cumbria, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University, Lancaster (1993).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    F. Zonabend, The Nuclear Peninsula (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    C. Palmer, “Risk Perception: An Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Worldview and Risk Construct,” Risk Anal. 16, 717–723 (1996).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    E. Peters and S. Slovic, “The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power,” J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26, 1427–1453 (1996).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    F. Seifert and H. Torgersen, Attitudes Towards Biotechnology in Austria: Can “Cultural Theory” Explain Empirical Data? Discussion Paper, Institute of Technology Assessment, Vienna, Austria (1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Risk Analysis 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Marris
    • 1
  • Ian H. Langford
    • 2
  • Timothy O'Riordan
    • 2
  1. 1.Formerly at the School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwich;
  2. 2.Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichU.K.

Personalised recommendations