Risk Perception in Bulgaria and Romania

  • Lennart Sjöberg
  • Daniela Kolarova
  • Alina-Anca Rucai
  • Marie-Louise Bernström
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 13)


Risk perception and media risk content were studied in Bulgaria and Romania; results were compared to data obtained in other countries, most notably in Sweden and Brazil. Various groups were sampled for investigating risk perception: nurses, students of economics and engineering, teachers, unskilled workers and homeless people. They rated a large number of general and personal risks, probabilities and consequences of harm, and demand for risk mitigation. It was found that Bulgarian risk perception levels were quite high, on the same level as Brazil and higher than the US data available for comparison. The Romanian data showed considerably lower levels, almost at the level of Scandinavian countries. The differences in levels of perceived risk between Romania and Bulgaria cannot be explained by differences in levels of real risk; Romania was in a clearly more difficult economic situation than Bulgaria. Media contents are therefore suggested as a more potent determinant of perceived risk than real risk. Among detailed results we can also mention that engineering students, followed by MBA students, gave the lowest risk ratings throughout the study. Some homeless people gave, contrary to expectations, low ratings of perceived risk - this could be a function of their limited access to media. Confidence in institutions and media was throughout quite low both in Bulgaria and Romania, but lowest in Bulgaria.


Risk Perception General Risk Personal Risk Risk Mitigation Homeless People 
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. Abel, E. (Ed.). (1981). The media in American society - What’s news. California: Institute of Contemporary Studies. of Wâhlberg, A., & Sjöberg, L. (in press). Risk perception and the media. A review of research on media Influence on public risk perception. Journal of Risk Research.Google Scholar
  2. Barny, M.-H., & Brenot, J. (1991). La perception des situations à risque. Preventiques. Prevention et gestion du risque, 41, 11–19.Google Scholar
  3. Bernström, M.-L. (1995). Radiation, risk perception and risk communication, (Rhizikon: Risk Research Report No. 25 ). Center for Risk Research: Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  4. Blomqvist, A.-C., & Sjöberg, L. (1987). Risk and accident reports in the mass media. In L. Sjöberg (Ed.), Risk and society (pp. 207–218 ). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  5. Boholm, A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenot, J., & Bonnefours, S. (1995). Approche socio-culturelle de la perception des risques (Note SEGR/LSEES No. 95–17). IPSN.Google Scholar
  7. Bryant, J., and Zillman, D. (Eds). (1994). Media effects- Advances in theory and research. New Jersey: LEA.Google Scholar
  8. Combs, B., & Slovic, P. (1979). Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 837–843, 849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (1994). The construction of justice: A case study of public participation in land management. In S. Opotow & S. Clayton (Eds.), Green justice, Journal of Social Issues, 50, 161–172.Google Scholar
  10. Dake, K. (1990). Technology on trial: Orienting dispositions toward environment and health hazards. Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  11. Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dominick, J. R. (1994). The dynamics of mass communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M., & Wildaysky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, M. (1989). Purity and danger - An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. Reading: Cox and Wyman.Google Scholar
  15. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame. Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1991). Perception of risk- Studies of risk attitudes, perceptions and definitions. Doctoral dissertation, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm of Economics.Google Scholar
  17. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M., & Sjöberg, L. (1991). Attitudes and conceptions of adolescents with regard to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 2007–2035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunlap, R. E., Gallup, G. H., Jr., & Gallup, A. M. (1993). Of global concern. Results of the health of the planet survey. Environment, 35, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunwoody, S. (1994). Community structure and media risk coverage. Risk- Issues in Health, and Safety, 5.Google Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  21. Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1994). Risk communication: the societal construction of meaning and trust. In B. Brehmer & N. E. Sahlin (Eds.), Future risks. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Engel, J., Blackwell, R., & Miniard, P. (1993). Consumer behavior, (7 th ed). Orlando: Dyrens Press.Google Scholar
  23. Englander, T., Farago, K., Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1986). A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social Behavior, 1, 55–66.Google Scholar
  24. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freudenburg, W. R. & Pastor, S. K. (1992). Public responses to technological risks: Toward a sociological perspective. The Sociological Quarterly, 33, 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Friedman, S. M. (1994). The media, risk assessment and numbers, Risk- Issues in Health and Safety, 5.Google Scholar
  27. Gerganov, E. N., Dilova, M. L., Paspalanova, E. P., & Petkova, K. G. (1995). Voting in the first post-totalitarian elections in Bulgaria. Political Psychology, 16, 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Gooch, G. D. (1995). Territories of environmental concern. Linköping: Institute of Thema Research.Google Scholar
  30. Gregory, R., Flynn, J., & Slovic, P. (1995). Technological stigma. American Scientist, 83, 220–223.Google Scholar
  31. Izvorski, I. (1993). Economic reform in Bulgaria 1989–1993. Communist Economic Transformation, 5, 519–531.Google Scholar
  32. Jeffres, L. W. (1994). Mass media processes, (2 nd ed). Illinois: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jianguang, Z. (1993). Environmental hazards in the Chinese public’s eyes. Risk Analysis, 13, 509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kachelmeier, S. J., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: Experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. American Economic Review, 82, 1120–1141.Google Scholar
  35. Karpowicz-Lazreg, C., & Mullet, E. (1993). Societal risks as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis, 13, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keon, C. F. (1989). Risk perception of Hong Kongese vs. Americans. Risk Analysis, 9, 401–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kleihesselink, R. R., & Rosa, E. A. (1991). Cognitive representation of risk perceptions–A comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 222, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koné, D., & Mullet, E. (1994). Societal risk perception and media coverage. Risk Analysis, 14 (1), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kowalewski, D., & Porter, K. L. (1993). Environmental concern among local citizens–A test of competing perspectives. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 21, 37–62.Google Scholar
  40. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1993). Intuitive toxicology: Experts and lay judgments of chemical risks. Comment on toxicology, 4, 441–484.Google Scholar
  41. Leiss, W., & Chociolko, C. (1994). Risk and responsibility. Québec: McGill Queens.Google Scholar
  42. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M, & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lima, M. L. (1995). Earthquakes are not seen in the same way by everyone. Cognitive adaptation and social identities in seismic risk perception. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis (Europe), Risk Analysis and Management in a Global Economy, Stuttgart, Germany, 21–25 May 1995.Google Scholar
  44. Lindstedt, U. (1995). Demokratin gar langsamt. Amnesty Press, 6, 2–4.Google Scholar
  45. Luthman, S. (1994). 1991-first quarter 1994 with initial revisions for 1993. Key Economic Indicators,2(2), Stockholm Institute of East European Economics.Google Scholar
  46. Marris, C., O‘Riordan, T., & Simpson, A. (1995). Redefining the cultural context of risk perception. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis (Europe), Risk Analysis and Management in a Global Economy, Stuttgart, Germany, 21–25 May 1995.Google Scholar
  47. Mechitov, A. I., & Rebrik, S. B. (1990). Studies of risk and safety perception in the USSR. In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Decision Making.Google Scholar
  48. Mihailescu, I. (1993). Mental stereotypes in post-totalitarian Romania. Government and Opposition, 23 (3).Google Scholar
  49. Natri, A. M. (1992). Revolutionen som stals-demokratirörelsens syn pâ Rumänien efter Ceausescu. Världspolitikens dagsfrägor, 9, Stockholm: UI.Google Scholar
  50. Nelson, M. C. (1988). Bitter bread- The famine in Norrbotten 1867–1868. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  51. Nyland, L. G. (1993). Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden (Rhizikon: Risk Research Report No. 15 ). Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  52. OECD. (1992). Bulgaria- An economic assessment. Paris: OCDE.Google Scholar
  53. OECD. (1993). Romania- An economic assessment. Paris: OCDE.Google Scholar
  54. Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1427–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peters, H. P. (1994.) Mass media as an information channel and public arena. Risk- Issues in Health and Safety,5 (3).Google Scholar
  56. Pushev, O. (1991). The Bulgarian economy: transition or turmoil. In O. Sjöberg, & M. L. Wyzan (Eds.), Economic changes in the Balkan States: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia. London: Printer Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Renn, O. (1992). Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 465–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ronnäs, P. (1991). The economic legacy of Ceausescu. In O. Sjöberg, & M. L. Wyzan (Eds.), Economic changes in the Balkan States: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia. London: Printer Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Rothman, S., & Lichter, S. R. (1987). Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. American Political Science Review, 8, 383–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sjöberg, L. (1996). A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and Cultural Theory approaches to risk perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perception: An empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 2, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sjöberg, L. (1998). World views, political attitudes and risk perception. Risk–Health, Safety and Environment, 9, 137–152.Google Scholar
  63. Sjöberg, L. (1999 a). Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for mitigation. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 129–149.Google Scholar
  64. Sjöberg, L. (1999 b). Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Human Ecology Review,6 (2).Google Scholar
  65. Sjöberg, L. (in press). Radiation risk perception in Western Europe. Ambio.Google Scholar
  66. Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1991). Knowledge and perception of risk among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Analysis, 11, 607–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B.-M. (1994). Risk perception of nuclear waste: experts and the public, (Rhizikon: Risk Research Report No. 16 ). Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
  68. Sjöberg, L., Jansson, B., & Viklund, M. (1999). Risk perception by the Swedish public 10 years after Chernobyl. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  69. Sjöberg, L., Kolarova, D., Rucai, A.-A., Bernström, M.-L., & Flygelholm, H. (1996). Risk perception and media risk reports in Bulgaria and Romania (RHIZIKON: Risk Research Report 23 ). Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.Google Scholar
  70. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B, & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk. In R. Kates, C. Hohenhemser, and J. Kasperson (Eds.), Perillous progress: managing the hazard of technology. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, A. H. (1991). The implications of change in East Central Europe for the Balkan socialist economies. In O. Sjöberg, & M. L. Wyzan (Eds.), Economic changes in the Balkan States: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia. London: Printer Publishers.Google Scholar
  72. Snyder, L. B., & Rouse, R. A. (1995). The media can have more than an impersonal impact: The case of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior. Health Communication, 7(2), 125–145.Google Scholar
  73. Sowby, F. D. (1965). Radiation and other risks. Health Physics, 11, 879–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165, 1232–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Teigen, K. H., Brun, W., & Slovic, P. (1988). Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Teodorescu, A. (1991). The future of a failure: the Romanian economy. In O. Sjöberg, & M. L. Wyzan (Eds.), Economic changes in the Balkan States: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia. London: Printer Publishers.Google Scholar
  77. Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildaysky, A. (1990). Cultural theory, or why all that is permanent is bias. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  78. Waterstone, M. (1992). Risk and society: the interaction of science, technology and public policy,Kluwer academic publishers.Google Scholar
  79. Wildaysky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what ànd why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41–60.Google Scholar
  80. World Bank. (1991). Bulgaria- Crisis and transition to a market economy,vol. 1. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  81. World Bank. (1991). Bulgaria- Crisis and transition to a market economy,vol. 2. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  82. Wyzan, M. L. (1991). The Bulgarian economy in the immediate post-Zhivkov era. In O. Sjöberg, & M. L. Wyzan (Eds.), Economic changes in the Balkan States: Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia. London: Printer Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lennart Sjöberg
    • 1
  • Daniela Kolarova
    • 2
  • Alina-Anca Rucai
    • 3
  • Marie-Louise Bernström
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Risk ResearchStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden
  2. 2.University of Sofia “St. Kl. Ohridski”SofiaBulgaria
  3. 3.Romanian Academy of SciencesBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations