A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm

This paper seeks to compare two frameworks which have been proposed to explain risk perceptions, namely, cultural theory and the psychometric paradigm. A structured questionnaire which incorporated elements from both approaches was administered to 129 residents of Norwich, England. The qualitative risk characteristics generated by the psychometric paradigm explained a far greater proportion of the variance in risk perceptions than cultural biases, though it should be borne in mind that the qualitative characteristics refer directly to risks whereas cultural biases are much more distant variables. Correlations between cultural biases and risk perceptions were very low, but the key point was that each cultural bias was associated with concern about distinct types of risks and that the pattern of responses was compatible with that predicted by cultural theory. The cultural approach also provided indicators for underlying beliefs regarding trust and the environment; beliefs which were consistent within each world view but divergent between them. An important drawback, however, was that the psychometric questionnaire could only allocate 32% of the respondents unequivocally to one of the four cultural types. The rest of the sample expressed several cultural biases simultaneously, or none at all. Cultural biases are therefore probably best interpreted as four extreme world views, and a mixture of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies would generate better insights into who might defend these views in what circumstances, whether there are only four mutually exclusive world views or not, and how these views are related to patterns of social solidarity, and judgments on institutional trust.

[1]  Steve Rayner,et al.  Management of Radiation Hazards in Hospitals: Plural Rationalities in a Single Institution , 1986 .

[2]  Karl Dake Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk , 1991 .

[3]  Françoise Zonabend,et al.  The Nuclear Peninsula , 1994 .

[4]  S. Rayner,et al.  How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice1 , 1987 .

[5]  C. Palmer,et al.  Risk perception: an empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Steve Rayner,et al.  Cultural theory and risk analysis , 1992 .

[7]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk , 1989 .

[8]  J. Richard Eiser,et al.  Attitudes, Chaos and the Connectionist Mind , 1994 .

[9]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  Branden B. Johnson,et al.  Risk and Culture Research , 1991 .

[11]  Craig W. Trumbo,et al.  Examining Psychometrics and Polarization in a Single‐Risk Case Study , 1995 .

[12]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[13]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework , 1988 .

[14]  H. C. Jenkins-Smith Stigma models: Testing hypotheses of how images of Nevada are acquired and values are attached to them , 1994 .

[15]  C Marris,et al.  Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  William J. Burns,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications , 1992 .

[17]  Françoise Zonabend,et al.  The nuclear peninsula: The Nuclear Peninsula , 1993 .

[18]  P. Slovic,et al.  The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power1 , 1996 .

[19]  J. Richard Eiser,et al.  Characterising the Perceived Risks and Benefits of Some Health Issues , 1984 .

[20]  Francoise Zonabend The nuclear peninsula: Françoise Zonabend , 1993 .

[21]  William R. Freudenburg,et al.  MEDIA COVERAGE OF HAZARD EVENTS : ANALYZING THE ASSUMPTIONS , 1995 .

[22]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[23]  Åsa Boholm,et al.  Risk perception and social anthropology: Critique of cultural theory* , 1996 .

[24]  Jonathan L. Gross,et al.  Measuring Culture: A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social Organization , 1986 .

[25]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm , 1992 .

[26]  Leroy C. Gould,et al.  Public Perceptions of the Risks and Benefits of Technology1 , 1989 .

[27]  Karl Dake Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk , 1992 .

[28]  Claire Waterton,et al.  Public perceptions and the nuclear industry in West Cumbria - report to Cumbria County Council , 1993 .

[29]  C. Marris,et al.  Integrating sociological and psychological approaches to public perceptions of environmental risks: detailed results from a questionnaire survey , 1996 .

[30]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers , 1983 .

[31]  M. Douglas Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences , 1986 .

[32]  Aaron Wildavsky,et al.  Individual Differences in Risk Perception and Risk-Taking Preferences , 1991 .

[33]  W. Freudenburg,et al.  NIMBYs and LULUs: Stalking the Syndromes , 1992 .

[34]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Characterizing Perceived Risk , 1985 .

[35]  P. Slovic Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[36]  M. Schwarz,et al.  Divided We Stand: Re-Defining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice , 1990 .