Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: State and Challenges

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


The perception of risk within different cultures is a rather complex phenomenon that cannot be described on the basis of a single theory or model. The major accomplishment gained through psychological research was the discovery of qualitative risk characteristics and cognitive as well as affective factors that serve as heuristic tools for classifying and evaluating risk sources or activities. Sociological and cultural research has been essential in pointing out the social, political, and cultural factors that influence risk perception directly, as well as indirectly through the assignment of significance to the individual risk characteristics. The relative weights of the individual risk characteristics depend on social and cultural factors that form the main research agenda for cross-cultural research. The studies compiled in this volume include trust and credibility, social values, and group affiliations as predictors for risk responses. This last chapter provides a review of the findings of these studies and outlines the main lessons for understanding risk perception and designing effective programs for risk management and communication, as well as for improving future cross-cultural risk research.


Risk Perception Risk Communication Risk Characteristic Risk Appraisal Risk Source 
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. Allen, F.W. (1987). Towards a holistic appreciation of risk: the challenge for communicators and policymakers Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 138–143.Google Scholar
  2. Baughman, M. (1995). Mediation. In: O. Remi, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Dordrecht & Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, N. J., & Bell, R. W. (1993). Adolescent risk taking. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Bellrose, C., & Pilisuk, M. (1991). Vocational risk tolerance and perceptions of occupational hazards. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradbury, J.A. (1989). The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 14 (No.4), 380–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bromiley, P., & Curley, S. P. (1992). Individual differences in risk taking. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk taking behavior (pp. 87–133 ). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, W.J. & Clemen, R.T. (1993). Covariance structure models and influence diagrams. Management Science, 39, 816–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, L. (1989). Acceptable risk? Making choices in a toxic environment. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, C. (1993). The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20, 611–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cvetkovich, G., & Earle, T. C. (Eds.) (1991). Risk and culture. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, special volume.Google Scholar
  11. Dahlbaeck, O. (1996). Personality and risk taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1235–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M. & Wildaysky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Drottz-Sjöberg, B. (1991). Risk perceptions and definitions of risk. In B. Drottz-Sjöberg (Ed.), Perceptions of Risk (pp. 163–214 ). Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.Google Scholar
  14. Drottz-Sjöberg, B., & Sjöberg, L. (1991). Adolescents attitudes to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. In B. Drottz-Sjöberg (Ed.), Perception of Risk (pp. 109–135 ). Stockholm: Center for Risk Research.Google Scholar
  15. Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  16. Farley, F. (1991). The type-T personality. In L. P. Lipsitt & L. L. Mitnick (Eds.), Self-regulatory behavior and risk-taking: Causes and consequences (pp. 371–382 ).Google Scholar
  17. Norwood/NJ: Ablex. Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 9, 293–299.Google Scholar
  18. Fischhoff, B. (1985). Managing risk perceptions. Issues in Science and Technology, 2, 83–96.Google Scholar
  19. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (1993). Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 14, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freudenburg, W.R. (1992). Heuristics, biases, and the not-so-general publics: Expertise and error in the assessment of risks. In S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 229–250 ). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  21. Freudenburg, W.R. (1993). Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces, 71, 909–932.Google Scholar
  22. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gould, L.C.; Gardner, G.Y.; DeLuca, D.R.; Tieman, A.; Doob, L.W. & Stolwijk, J.A.J. (1988).Google Scholar
  24. Perceptions of technological risk and benefits. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Greening, L., & Dollinger, S. J. (1992). Adolescent’s perceptions of lightning and tornado risks.Google Scholar
  25. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 755–762.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas J. (1971). Toward a rational society. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  27. Hampel, J. & Pfenning, U. (1998). Biotechnology and public perception of technology. The German case. Working Report of the Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: TA-Center.Google Scholar
  28. Horvath, P., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Sensation seeking, risk appraisal and behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jasanoff, S. (1998). The political science of risk perception. Reliability Engineering & Systems Safety, 59 (1), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (No. 2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kals, E. (1996). Are proenvironmental commitments motivated by health concerns or by perceived justice? In: L. Montada & M. Lerner (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 231–258 ). New York: PlenumGoogle Scholar
  33. Kals, E., Schumacher, D. & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as motivational basis to protect nature. Environment & Behavior, 31 (2), 178–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kasperson R., Golding, D. & Tuler, S. (1992). Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kasperson, R.E. & Kasperson, J.X. (1983). Determining the acceptability of risk: Ethical and policy issues. In J.T. Rogers & D.V. Bates (Eds.), Assessment and perception of risk to human health (pp. 135–155 ). Conference Proceedings. Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Kasperson, R.E, Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble. R., Kasperson, J.X. & Ratick, S. (1988), The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keinan, G., Meir, E., & Gome-Nemirovsky, T. (1984). Measurement of risk takers’ personality. Psychological Reports, 55, 163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krimsky, S. (1992). The role of theory in risk studies. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 3–22 ). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Kunreuther, H. & Slovic, R (1996). Science, values, and risk Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Special Issue, H. Kunreuther & P. Slovic (Eds.), Challenges in risk assessment and risk management (pp. 116–125 ). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Lantermann, E,-D., Döring-Seipel, E. & Schirma, R (1992). Werte, Gefühle and Unbestimmtheit: Kognitivemotionale Wechselwirkungen im Umgang mit einem ökologischen System. In: K. Pawlik & K.H. Stapf (Eds.), Umwelt and Verhalten. Perspektiven and Ergebnisse ökopsychologischer Forschung (pp. 129–144 ). Bern: HuberGoogle Scholar
  41. Lappe, H. (1991). Perceptions of drug risk: individual and public responses to drugs. Ph.Diss., Berlin: Technical University of Berlin.Google Scholar
  42. Lichtenberg, J., & MacLean, D. (1988). The role of media in risk communication. In H. Jungermann, R. E. Kasperson, & P. M. Wiedemann (Eds.), Risk communication (pp. 3349). Proceedings of the international workshop on risk communication. Juelich: Research Center - MUT.Google Scholar
  43. Linnerooth-Bayer, J. & Fitzgerald, K.B. (1996). Conflicting views on fair siting processes: Evidence from Austria and the U.S. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 7 (2), 119–134Google Scholar
  44. Lopes, L. L. (1988). Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 255–295.Google Scholar
  45. Lopes, L. L. (1993). On modeling risky choice: Why reasons matter. In O. Huber, J. Mumpower, J. V. Plight, & P. Koele (Eds.), Current themes in psychological decision research Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  46. Luhmann N. (1990). Technology, environment, and social risk: a systems perspective. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4, 223–231.Google Scholar
  47. Marris, C., Langford, I., & O’Riordan, T. (1996). Integrating sociological and psychological approaches to public perceptions on environmental risks. Research Report. Norwich: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  48. MacLean, D. (1986). Social values and the distribution of risk. In D. MacLean (Ed.), Values at risk (pp. 75–93 ). Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
  49. Peters, H.P. (1986). Public opinion as a channel of communication between science and other parts of society. Manuscript for the 11. World Congress of Sociology, August 18–22, 1986. New Delhi: Research Center Juelich- MUT.Google Scholar
  50. Peters, H.P. (1994): Risikokommunikation in den Medien. In: K. Merten; S.J. Schmidt & S. Weichenberger (Eds.), Die Wirklichkeit der Medien. Eine Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft (pp. 329–351 ). Opladen: Westdeutscher VerlagGoogle Scholar
  51. Rayner, S. (1984). Disagreeing about risk: The institutional cultures of risk management and planning for future generations. In S.G. Hadden (Ed.), Risk analysis, institutions, and public policy (pp. 150–17 ). Port Washington: Associated Faculty Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rayner, S. (1987). Risk and relativism in science for policy. In V. T. Covello and B.B. Johnson (Eds.), The social and cultural construction of risk (pp. 5–23 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Dordrecht: Reidel. Rayner, S. (1990). Risk in cultural perspective: Acting under uncertainty. Norwell: Klewer. Rayner, S. & Cantor, R. (1987). How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Analysis, 7, 3–13.Google Scholar
  54. Renn, O. (1990). Risk perception and risk management: A review. Risk Abstracts, 7 (No. 1), 19 (Part 1) and 7 (No. 2 ), 1–9 (Part 2).Google Scholar
  55. Renn, O. (1992a). Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 465–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Renn O (1992b). The social arena concept of risk debates. In S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 170–197 ). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  57. Renn O (1995). Style of using scientific expertise: a comparative framework. Science and Public Policy, 22, 147–156.Google Scholar
  58. Renn, 0., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 137–160.Google Scholar
  59. Renn, 0., Webler, Th., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. C., & Johnson, B. B. (1993). Public participation in the decision making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reran, O. & Zwick, M.M. (1997): Risiko-and Technikakzeptanz. Berlin et. al.: Springer. Rohrmann, B. (1991). Akteure der Risiko-Kommunikation. In H. Jungermann, B. Rohrmann, & P. M. Wiedemann (Eds.), Risikokontroversen–Konzepte, Konflikte, Kommunikation (pp. 355–371 ). Berlin et. al.: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Rohrmann, B. (1998). The risk notion - epistemological and empirical considerations. In R. Melchers (Ed.), Integrative risk assessment I I. Rotterdam: Balkema.Google Scholar
  62. Rohrmann, B. (1999). Risk perception research: Review and documentation (Update, Studies in Risk Communication vol. 69). Juelich: Research Center. (Available on the WWW,• URL = Google Scholar
  63. Rohrmann, B. & Loquet, T. (in prep). Attitudes toward risk taking and risk perception: Findings from five studies (Research report). Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Dept. of Psychology.Google Scholar
  64. Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13, 413–420. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Determinants of risk-taking: behavioral and economic views. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 49–73.Google Scholar
  65. Schuetz, H. (in prep.). Die Struktur von Risikowahrnehmung - Anwendung von Strukturgleichungsmodellen. Juelich: Research Center Juelich - MUT.Google Scholar
  66. Schwarz, M. & Thompson, M. (1990). Divided we stand: Redefining politics, technology, and social choice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  67. Short, J.F. (1984). The social fabric of risk: Toward the social transformation of risk analysis. American Sociological Review, 49, 711–725.Google Scholar
  68. Short, J.F. (1989). On defining, describing, and explaining elephants (and reactions to them): Hazards, disasters, and risk analysis. Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 7 (No.3), 397–418.Google Scholar
  69. Short, J.F & Clarke, L. (1992). Social organization and risk. In J.F. Short & L. Clarke (Eds.), Organizations, uncertainties, and risk (pp. 309–321 ).Google Scholar
  70. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  71. Shubik, M. (1991). Risk, society, politicians, scientists, and people. In M. Shubik (Ed.), Risk, organizations, and society (pp. 7–30 ) Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. (1995). Determinants of risky decision-making Behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1573–1592.Google Scholar
  73. Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perception: An empirical evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 113–130.Google Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In D. Golding & S. Krimsky (Eds.), Theories of risk (pp. 117–152 ). London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  76. Slovic, P., Layman, M., & Flynn, J. (1991). Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain. Environment, 33, 6–11, 28–30.Google Scholar
  77. Smithson, M. (1991). The changing nature of ignorance. In J. Handmer, B. Dutton, B. Guerin, & M. Smithson (Eds.), New perspectives on uncertainty and risk (pp. 5–38 ). Canberra: ANU/ CRES.Google Scholar
  78. Steg, L. (1998). Myths of nature and risk perception: A psychological contribution to cultural theory. Paper presented at the ICAP 98.Google Scholar
  79. Trimpop, R. M. (1994). The psychology of risk taking behavior. Amsterdam: New Holland. Urban, D. (1998): Technikeinstellungen: gibt es die überhaupt? Eine Längsschnittanalyse vonGoogle Scholar
  80. Bewertungen der Gentechnik. Working Report of the Institute for Social Sciences, No.2. Stuttgart: University of StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  81. Vaughn, E., & Nordenstam, B. (1991). Perceptions of environmental risk among ethnically diverse groups in the United States. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 22, 29–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1999 in press). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science Weinstein, N. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 355–386.Google Scholar
  83. Wilde, G. J. S. (1988). Risk homeostasis theory. Ergonomics, 31, 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wilkins, L. (1991). The risks outside and the pictures in our heads: Connecting the news to people and politics. In J. Handmer, B. Dutton, B. Guerin, & M. Smithson (Eds.), New perspectives on uncertainty and risk (pp. 133–160 ). Canberra: ANU/ CRES.Google Scholar
  85. Zuckerman, M. (1990). The psychology of sensation seeking. Journal of Personality, 58, 313345.Google Scholar
  86. Zwick, M.M. & Renn, O. (1998). Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Technik in Baden-Württemberg. Report Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: Center of TA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ortwin Renn
    • 1
  • Bernd Rohrmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Center of Technology AssessmentStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations