Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual Differences in the Judgment of Risks: Sociodemographic Characteristics, Cultural Orientation, and Level of Expertise

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis

Abstract

This chapter presents a detailed overview of the risk perception research that has been conducted on some individual differences in the judgment of risks. Among the individual differentiation factors examined here are the sociodemographic characteristics of individuals (e.g., gender, ethnicity). An important finding of this first part is that sex and race are strongly related to risk judgments. White men tend to judge risks as smaller and less problematic than do women and non-white men. A variety of explanations has been developed to account for this white male effect (as well as other sociodemographic differences). To date, (1) being in advantageous positions in terms of power, control over risks, and benefit from them, in conjunction with (2) selecting risk information in a manner supportive of his/her cultural orientation, appear to be the most plausible explanations of the low (versus high)-risk sensitivity. Part 2 is devoted to another important source of individual differences in risk perception, documenting the role of cultural worldviews in shaping individual risk perceptions. In this regard, the cultural cognition thesis is outlined as one of a variety of approaches for understanding the influence of such sociocultural values on risk perception. According to this approach, individuals form risk perceptions that cohere with values characteristic of groups with which they identify. The last part is focused on the striking differences of opinion between experts and the public. Experts generally rate risk as lower and as synonymous with statistical data. Lay people tend to have a broader and more qualitative conception of risk. Both technical risk assessments and public perceptions of risk, however, are recognized as subjective and value-laden views. Accordingly, it is also argued that members of the public and experts may disagree about risk because they have different worldviews, different affective experiences, and a low versus high level of trust in risk regulatory authorities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barke, R. P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13, 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barke, R. P., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Slovic, P. (1997). Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 167–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastide, S., Moatti, J.-P., Pages, J.-P., & Fagnani, F. (1989). Risk perception and social acceptability of technologies: The French case. Risk Analysis, 9, 215–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, T. L. (1978). Research on fear of crime in the United States. Victimology, 3, 254–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonem, E. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Gonzalez, R. (2015). Age differences in risk: Perceptions, intentions, and domains. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28, 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boholm, A. (1996). Risk perception and social anthropology: Critique of cultural theory. Ethnos, 61, 64–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyer, M., Bagdassarian, S., Chaabane, S., & Mullet, E. (2001). Personality correlates of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 21, 457–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brenot, J., Bonnefous, S., & Marris, C. (1998). Testing the cultural theory of risk in France. Risk Analysis, 18, 729–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., & Grover, H. (2008). Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment & Behavior, 40, 72–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauvin, B. (2014). La perception des risques. Apports de la psychologie à l’identification des déterminants du risque perçu [The perception of risk: Contributions of the research in psychology for identifying what are the determinants of perceived risk]. Bruxelles: De Boeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, C. L., Berube, D. M., & Lavelle, M. E. (2013). Influences of individual-level characteristics on risk perceptions to various categories of environmental health and safety risks. Journal of Risk Research, 16, 1277–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Avon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns. A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witt, A., Osseweijer, P., & Pierce, R. (2017). Understanding public perceptions of biotechnology through the “integrative worldview framework”. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 70-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar-Chowdhury, P., Haque, C. E., & Driedger, S. M. (2016). Dengue disease risk mental models in the city of Dhaka, Bangladesh: Juxtapositions and gaps between the public and experts. Risk Analysis, 36, 874–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosman, D. M., Adamowicz, W. L., & Hrudey, S. E. (2001). Socioeconomic determinants of health- and food safety-related risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 21, 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1982). Essay in the sociology of perception. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2003). Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 327–364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk and Society, 2, 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13, 643–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, G. T., & Gould, L. C. (1989). Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 9, 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, T. (2001). Analytical paradigms: The epistemological distances between scientists, policy makers, and the public. Risk Analysis, 21, 443–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18, 805–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakes, J. K., & Viscusi, W. K. (2004). Dead reckoning: Demographic determinants of the accuracy of mortality risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 24, 651–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homko, C. J., Zamora, L., Santamore, W. P., Kashem, A., McConnell, T., & Bove, A. A. (2010). Gender differences in cardiovascular risk factors and risk perception among individuals with diabetes. Diabetes Education, 36, 483–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. B. (2002). Gender and race in beliefs about outdoor air pollution. Risk Analysis, 22, 725–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M. (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, S. Roeser, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory: Epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk (pp. 725–760). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 465–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Wittlin, M., Peters, E., Slovic, P., Larrimore Ouellette, L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. N. (2011). The tragedy of the risk-perception commons: Culture conflict, rationality conflict, and climate change (Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper N° 89)

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpowicz-Lazreg, C., & Mullet, E. (1993). Societal risks as seen by the French public. Risk Analysis, 13, 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellens, W., Zaalberg, R., Neutens, T., Vanneuville, W., & De Maeyer, P. (2011). An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian coast. Risk Analysis, 31, 1055–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12, 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krewski, D., Slovic, P., Bartlett, S., Flynn, J., & Mertz, C. K. (1995a). Health risk perception in Canada I: Rating hazards, sources of information and responsibility for health protection. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1, 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krewski, D., Slovic, P., Bartlett, S., Flynn, J., & Mertz, C. K. (1995b). Health risk perception in Canada II: Worldviews, attitudes and opinions. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1, 231–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W. (2012). Lay epistemic theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 201–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kung, Y.-W., & Chen, S.-H. (2012). Perception of earthquake risk in Taiwan: Effects of gender and past earthquake experience. Risk Analysis, 32, 1535–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, J. C., & Tao, J. (2003). Perception of environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese. Risk Analysis, 23, 669–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazo, J. K., Kinnell, J. C., & Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis, 20, 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macias, T. (2016). Environmental risk perception among race and ethnic groups in the United States. Ethnicities, 16, 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, B. K., Picou, J. S., Formichella, C., & Nicholls, K. (2006). Environmental risk perceptions and the white male effect: Pollution concerns among deep-south coastal residents. Journal of Applied Sociology/Sociological Practice, 23(8), 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C., Langford, I., & O’Riordan, T. (1998). A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18, 635–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkelsen, H. (2011). Institutionalized ignorance as a precondition for rational risk expertise. Risk Analysis, 31, 1083–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertz, C. K., Slovic, P., & Purchase, F. H. (1998). Judgments of chemical risks: Comparisons among senior managers, toxicologists, and the public. Risk Analysis, 18, 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morioka, R. (2014). Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity. Social Science and Medicine, 107, 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson, A., & Rashid, S. (2011). The white (male) effect and risk perception: Can equality make a difference? Risk Analysis, 31, 1016–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, C. G. (1996). Risk perception: An empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct. Risk Analysis, 16, 717–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, C. G. (2003). Risk perception: Another look at the “white male” effect. Health, Risk & Society, 5, 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilisuk, M., & Acredolo, C. (1988). Fear of technological hazards: One concern or many? Social Behavior, 3, 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purvis-Roberts, K. L., Werner, C. A., & Frank, I. (2007). Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Analysis, 27, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 21, 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, T. A., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (2004). Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis, 24, 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1289–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13, 413–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, A. K., Minich, S. H., Langen, T. A., Skufca, J., & Wilke, A. (2016). Are college students’ assessments of threat shaped by the dangers of their childhood environment? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 2006–2025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1998a). Risk perception: Experts and the public. European Psychologist, 3, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1998b). Worldviews, political attitudes, and risk perception. Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment, 9, 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2003). Distal factors in risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 6, 187–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689–701.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass, I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision making, 2, 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2016). Understanding perceived risk: 1978–2015. Environment, 58, 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21, 14–20; 36-39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risks. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Alberts Jr. (Eds.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? (pp. 181–214). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intuitive toxicology II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15, 661–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolowska, J., & Sleboda, P. (2015). The inverse relation between risks and benefits: The role of affect and expertise. Risk Analysis, 35, 1252–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tansey, J., & O’Riordan, T. (1999). Cultural theory and risk: A review. Health, Risk, & Society, 1, 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M., Ellis, R., & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder and San Francisco: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turiano, N. A., Chapman, B. P., Agrigoroaei, S., Infurna, F. J., & Lachman, M. (2014). Perceived control reduces mortality risk at low, not high, education levels. Health Psychology, 33, 883–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The risk perception paradox: Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 33, 1049–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119, 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2015). Gender differences in environmental concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environment and Behavior, 47, 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, X. F., Wang, M., & Xu, L. C. (2003). What risks are Chinese people concerned about? Risk Analysis, 23, 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue, W., Hine, D. W., Loi, N. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Phillips, W. J. (2014). Cultural worldviews and environmental risk perceptions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

    Bruno Chauvin

Authors
  1. Bruno Chauvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Chauvin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Agelab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Martina Raue

  2. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Eva Lermer

  3. Institute of Psychology, UMIT - Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tyrol, Austria

    Bernhard Streicher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chauvin, B. (2018). Individual Differences in the Judgment of Risks: Sociodemographic Characteristics, Cultural Orientation, and Level of Expertise. In: Raue, M., Lermer, E., Streicher, B. (eds) Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation