The Cognitive Architecture of Risk: Pancultural Unity or Cultural Shaping?
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.
KeywordsRisk Perception Nuclear Weapon Latent Variable Model Cognitive Architecture Japanese Sample
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Bentler, P. 1989. EQS: Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software, Inc.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Brislin, R. 1993. Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behavior. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Publishers.Google Scholar
- Byrne, B. M. 1994. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Covello, V. T., von Winterfeldt, D. and Slovic, R. 1986. Risk communication: A review of the literature. Risk Abstracts 3: 71–182.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Deaux, K. and Wrightsman, L. S. 1988. Social Psychology, 5th edition. Pacific Grove: Brooks/ Cole.Google Scholar
- Douglas, M. and Wildaysky, A. 1982. Risk and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Heisenberg, W. 1958. The Physicist’s Conception of Nature. Trans. by Arnold J. Pomrtrans. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
- Hoshino, K. 1989. Personal communication, National Institute of Police Science, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
- Johnson, E. J. and Tversky, A. 1984. Dimensional analysis of risk perceptions. Journal of Exuerimental Psychology: General 113: 53–64.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D., Slovic, P and Tversky, A. (Eds.) 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainity: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Loehlin, J. C. 1992. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Analysis. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Mazur, A. 1982. The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington DC: Communications Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. 1989. Improving Risk Communication. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Thompson, M., Ellis, R. and Wildaysky, A. 1990. Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar