Cross-Cultural Studies on the Perception and Evaluation of Hazards

  • Bernd Rohrmann
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 13)


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.


Nuclear Power Plant Risk Perception Risk Communication German Data Coal Power Plant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond, M. H. (Ed.) (1996). The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Brody, C. J. (1984). Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces, 63, 209–228.Google Scholar
  6. Burgemeister, J., & Weber, M. (1993). Risiko und Akzeptanz von Industrieansiedlungen. Zeitschrift fair Betriebswirtschaft, 63, 147–169.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Conrad, J. (Ed.) (1980). Society, technology and risk assessment. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M. (1989). Effective risk communication. The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1991). Risk and culture. Special Issue, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social issues, 48, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1997). Culture, cosmopolitanism, and risk management. Risk Analysis, 17, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edwards, W., & Winterfeldt, D. v. (1987). Public values in risk debates. Risk Analysis, 7, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feather, N. T. (1991). Human values, global self-esteeem, and belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 59, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision and dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fietkau, H. J., Hassebrauck, M., & Watts, N. (1980). Der internationale Umweltfragebogen Google Scholar
  19. (IUF): Ein Instrumentarium zur Erfassung umweltbezogener Werte. Berlin: Internationales Institut für Umwelt und Gesellschaft, Report IIVG/80.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischhoff, B. (1994). Acceptable risk: a conceptual proposal. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 5, 1–28.Google Scholar
  22. Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (1993). Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 14, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. L., & Keeney, R. L. (1982). Acceptable risk. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gould, L., Gardner, D., DeLuca, D., Tiemann, A, Doob, L., & Stolwijk, J. (1988). Perceptions of technological risks and benefits. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Heimer, C. A. (1988). Social structure, psychology, and the estimation of risk. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture ‘s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jianguang, Z. (1994). Environmental hazards in the Chinese public’s eyes. Risk Analysis, 14, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1988). LISREL (Analysis ofLlnear Structural RELationships) - User’s guide. Chicago: National Educational Resources.Google Scholar
  32. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1987). SIMPLIS-A simplified version ofLISREL. Mooresville: Scientific Software Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, B. B., & Covello, V. T. (Eds.) (1987). The social and cultural construction of risk. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  34. Jungermann, H., & Slovic, P. (1993). Characteristics of individual risk perception. In BayerischeRueck (Ed.), Risk–a construct. (pp. 85–102 ). München: Knesebeck.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Kasperson, R. E., & Stallen, P. M. (Eds.) (1990). Communicating risks to the public. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Keyes, R. (1985). Chancing it: Why we take risks. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
  38. Kistler, E., & Jaufmann, D. (Hg.) (1990). Mensch - Gesellschaft - Technik. Wiesbaden: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuyper, H., & Vlek, C. (1984). Contrasting risk judgements among interest groups. Acta Psychologica, 56, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lundgren, R. (1994). Risk Communication. Columbus: Batelle Press.Google Scholar
  42. Maag, G. (1991). Gesellschaftliche Werte. Strukturen, Stabilität und Funktion. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. March, J., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33, 1401–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. McCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives. Management Science, 36, 422–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morgan, M. G. (1993). Risk analysis and management. Scientific American, 248, 24–30.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. National Research Council (USA) (Ed.) (1990). Improving risk communication. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nyland, L. G. (1993). Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. Stockholm School of Economics: Centre for Risk Research.Google Scholar
  52. Opwis, K., & May, R. (1985). Determinanten der Risikoakzeptanz bei Umweltproblemen. Forschungsbericht des Psychologischen Instituts Freiburg.Google Scholar
  53. Pilisuk, M., Parks, S. H., & Hawkes, G. (1987). Public perception of technological risk. The Social Science Journal, 24, 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rayner, S. (1990). Risk in cultural perspective: Acting under uncertainty. Klewer: Norwell.Google Scholar
  56. Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  57. Renn, O. (1992a). Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 465–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Rohrmann, B. (1991). Risks and benefits of individual activities and living conditions - a crosscultural comparison (Research Report). Hamilton/NZ: University of Waikato.Google Scholar
  60. Rohrmann, B. (1994). Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and crossnational comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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 =
  62. 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
  63. Rohrmann, B (1998). The risk notion: Epistemological and empirical considerations. In R. Melchers & M. Stewart, Integrated Risk Assessment, 39–45. Rotterdam: Balkema.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Rohrmann, B., & Chen, H. (1999). Risk perception in China and Australia: an exploratory crosscultural study. Journal of Risk Research 2 (3), 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13, 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schuez, M. (Hrsg.) (1990). Risiko and Wagnis. Die Herausforderung der industriellen Welt. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
  69. Schwarz, M., & Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  70. Shapira, Z. (1986). Risk in managerial decision making. Jerusalem: Diss/Hebrew University.Google Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Sjöberg, L. (1998). Worry and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 18, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perceptions: An empirical evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 7, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Why study risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. Sokolowska, J., & Tyszka, T. (1995). Perception and acceptance of technological and environmental risks: Why are poor countries less concerned? Risk Analysis, 15, 733–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1994). The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Thompson, M., Ellis, W., & Wildaysky, A. (1990). Cultural theory, or why all that is permanent is bias. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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, 81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tweeddale, H. M. (1994). Uses and limitations of risk assessment. Sydney: A Carre.Google Scholar
  85. Vaughan, E. (1995). The significance of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity for the risk communication process. Risk Analysis, 15, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Viscusi, W. K., & Magat, W. A. (1987). Learning about risk: Consumer and worker responses to hazard information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Wildaysky, A. (1995). But is it true?. Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Winterfeldt, D. v., John, R. S., & Borcherding, K. (1981). Cognitive components of risk ratings. Risk Analysis, 1, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Rohrmann
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations