Skip to main content
Book cover

Researching Risk and Uncertainty pp 233–263Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

International Comparative Surveys in Risk Perception Research: Data Sets, Construction of Questionnaires, and Analytical Dimensions

Part of the Critical Studies in Risk and Uncertainty book series (CRSTRU)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the construction and measurement of risk perception items in international comparative surveys (e.g. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), Gallup World Polls, Eurobarometer) and provides a comprehensive review of available open access data sets. The chapter reviews and discusses how risk perception is worded in different questionnaires, what measurement scales are used, and how this relates to more general methodological concerns about the construction of rating scales.

A number of examples of studies using international surveys to investigate risk perceptions are provided in this chapter to illustrate the variety of analytical dimensions that can be used to analyse risk perceptions comparatively, the challenges faced by methodological differences across international surveys are analysed, and a checklist is provided to support researchers interested in comparative analysis of risk perception.

Keywords

  • Risk Perception Research
  • International Social Survey Programme (ISSP)
  • Eurobarometer
  • ISSP Survey
  • ISSP Data

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-95852-1_10
  • Chapter length: 31 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-95852-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 10.1
Fig. 10.2
Fig. 10.3
Fig. 10.4
Fig. 10.5
Fig. 10.6

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm

  2. 2.

    Eurobarometer Data Service, http://www.gesis.org/eurobarometer-data-service/survey-series/standard-special-eb/

  3. 3.

    Normal distribution in the case of continuous data is a symetrical distribution with a bell shape (Russo 2003:26)

References

  • Adeola, F. O. (2007). Nativity and environmental risk perception: An empirical study of native-born and foreign-born residents of the USA. Research in Human Ecology, 14(1), 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balžekienė, A., & Telešienė, A. (2017). Vulnerable and insecure? Environmental and technological risk perception in Europe. In Green European: Environmental behaviour and attitudes in Europe in a historical and cross-cultural comparative perspective (pp. 31–55). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennie, J. A., Chau, J. Y., van der Ploeg, H. P., Stamatakis, E., Do, A., & Bauman, A. (2013). The prevalence and correlates of sitting in European adults – A comparison of 32 Eurobarometer-participating countries. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 107.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Black, T. R. (2003). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences. An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boholm, A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377231.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boholm, M. (2012). The semantic distinction between “risk” and “danger”: A linguistic analysis. Risk Analysis, 32(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01668.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Breakwell, G. M. (2014). The psychology of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2016). The stability of risk and benefit perceptions: A longitudinal study assessing the perception of biotechnology. Journal of Risk Research, 19(4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.988169.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Croasmun, J. T. and Ostrom, L. (2011). Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences. Journal of Adult Education, 40(1), 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, R. A. (1997). Comprehensive quality of life scale – Adult. Manual, School of Psychology, Deakin University. Retrieved from http://www.acqol.com.au/instruments/comqol-scale/comqol-a5.pdf

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Stephen, R., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127–152.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Franchino, F. (2014). The social bases of nuclear energy policies in Europe: Ideology, proximity, belief updating and attitudes to risk. European Journal of Political Research, 53, 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12029.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Franzen, A., & Vogl, D. (2013). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1001–1008.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Hohl, K., & Gerber, M. M. (2016). Do closed survey questions overestimate public perceptions of food risks? Journal of Risk Research, 20(8), 1038–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1147492\.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., & Bardes, J. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 185–194.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow, M. J., Williams, H. R., & Azapagic, A. (2011). Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6199–6210.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hadler, M., & Kraemer, K. (2017). The perception of environmental threats in a global and European perspective. In Green European: Environmental behaviour and attitudes in Europe in a historical and cross-cultural comparative perspective (pp. 13–30). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hantrais, L. (1999). Contextualization in cross-national comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(2), 93–108.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hohl, K., & Gaskell, G. (2008). European public perceptions of food risk: Cross-national and methodological comparisons. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01021.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • ISSP Research Group. (2012). International Social Survey Programme: Environment III – ISSP 2010. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5500 Data file Version 2.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11418. Access: https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/sdesc2.asp?no=5500

  • Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1217–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K. W. (2016, February). Public awareness and perception of climate change: A quantitative cross-national study. Environmental Sociology, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagos, M. (2007). International comparative surveys: Their purpose, content and methodological challenges. In W. Donsbach & M. W. Traugott (Eds.), The Sage handbook of public opinion research (pp. 580–593). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima, M. L., Barnett, J., & Vala, J. (2005). Risk perception and technological development at a societal level. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1229–1239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00664.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, A. Y., & Chow, A. T. (2015). The relationship between climate change concern and national wealth. Climatic Change, 131(2), 335–348.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. C., & Salkind, N. J. (2002). Handbook of research design and social measurement. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, R., & Rayner, S. (2010). Integrating psychometric and cultural theory approaches to formulate an alternative measure of risk perception. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 23(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2010.512439.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, R. W. (2010). Statistical persuasion. Los Angeles/London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raska, P. (2015). Flood risk perception in Central–Eastern European members states of the EU: A review. Natural Hazards, 79, 2163–2179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1929-x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rerimassie, V., Ying, M., Srinivas, K. R., & Ladikas, M. (2015). Public perceptions of science and technology in Europe, China and India. In Science and technology governance and ethics (pp. 25–37). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rippl, S. (2002). Cultural theory and risk perception: A proposal for a better measurement. Journal of Risk Research, 5(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987011004259.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perception: An empirical evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decision and Policy 2(2), 113–130.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2003). Risk perception is not what it seems: The psychometric paradigm revisited. In K. Anderson (Ed.), VALDOR Conference 2003 (pp. 14–29). Stockholm: VALDOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(17 April), 280–285.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Special Eurobarometer 238. (2006). Risk issues. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/public opinion/ archives/ebs/ebs 238 en.pdf

  • Sullivan, G., & Artino, A. (2013, December). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 541–542.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Telesiene, A., & Gross, M. (Eds.). (2017). Green European: Environmental behaviour and attitudes in Europe in a historical and cross-cultural comparative perspective. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjernström, E., & Tietenberg, T. (2008). Do differences in attitudes explain differences in national climate change policies? Ecological Economics, 65, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.06.019.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Galešić, M. (2008). Conceptions of attitudes and opinions. In The Sage handbook of public opinion research (pp. 141–154).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, I. (2001). Social theories of risk perception: At once indispensable and insufficient. Current Sociology, 49(January), 1–22.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • World Nuclear Association. (2012). World nuclear power reactors & Uranium requirements archive. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-archive/reactor-archive-january-2012.aspx

  • Zwick, M. M. (2005). Risk as perceived by the German public: Pervasive risks and “switching” risks. Journal of Risk Research, 8(September), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870500064150.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Resources of International Survey Data

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Society and Sustainability Research Group, Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Aistė Balžekienė

Authors
  1. Aistė Balžekienė
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aistė Balžekienė .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Risk and Crisis Research Centre, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden

    Anna Olofsson & Jens O. Zinn & 

  2. School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Jens O. Zinn

Appendices

Appendix I: Resources

Summary of items related to environmental and technological risk in different international surveys

Survey

Year

Topic

Selected references

International Social Survey Programme

ISSP “Environment”

1993; 2000; 2010

Environmental risk (climate change, genetically modified organisms, air pollution)

Technological risk (nuclear power)

Tjernström and Tietenberg (2008) (climate change)

Lima et al. (2005) (technological risks)

Adeola (2007) (environmental risks)

Lo and Chow (2015) (climate change)

Eurobarometer

Special EB 354; 238

2010; 2006

Food-related risks

Gaskell et al. (2016)

Hohl and Gaskell (2008)

Special EB 416; 365; 295; 217; 180; 131; 88; 66

2014; 2011; 2008; 2005;

2003; 1999; 1995; 1993

Environmental risk

Climate change

Raska (2015)

Lorenzoni and Pidgeon (2006)

Special EB 314, 246

2010; 2006

Risk perception of potential health hazards

Bennie et al. (2013)

Special EB 324; 271

2010; 2007

Nuclear safety

Goodfellow et al. 2011

Special EB 340, 224; 154

2010; 2005; 2001

Technology in general

Rerimassie et al. 2015

Special EB 341; 244b; 177; 134; 108; 80

2010; 2006; 2003; 2000;

1997; 1993

Biotechnology

Connor and Siegrist (2016)

Gaskell et al. (2004)

Gallup World Poll

2007/2008; 2010

Climate change

Knight (2016)

Appendix II: Summary of Selected Statistics for Non-normal Distributions

Hypothesis

Type of measure

Non-parametric statistics

Correlation

Interval, ordinal

Spearman’s rho

Association

Nominal, ordinal

Phi (tables 2X2);

Contingency C (larger tables)

Cramer’s V (equal number of categories in dependent and independent variable)

Equality of means for two independent samples

Scale or interval as dependent variable/nominal or ordinal as independent

Mann–Whitney U test

Equality of means for K independent samples

Scale or interval as dependent variable/nominal or ordinal as independent

Kruskal–Wallis test

Equality of means for two paired samples

Scale or interval as dependent variable/nominal or ordinal as independent

Wilcoxon test

Equality of means for K paired samples

Scale or interval as dependent variable/nominal or ordinal as independent

Friedman test

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Balžekienė, A. (2019). International Comparative Surveys in Risk Perception Research: Data Sets, Construction of Questionnaires, and Analytical Dimensions. In: Olofsson, A., Zinn, J.O. (eds) Researching Risk and Uncertainty. Critical Studies in Risk and Uncertainty. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95852-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95852-1_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95851-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95852-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)