IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v16y1996i5p717-723.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception: An Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Worldview and the Risk Construct

Author

Listed:
  • Christina G. S. Palmer

Abstract

This study empirically assesses the performance of Holtgrave and Weber's Simplified Conjoint Expected Risk (SCER) model for financial and health stimuli in 3 groups of “worldview holders”—12 hierarchists, 10 individualists, and 16 egalitarians—as described by cultural theory. The SCER model performed well, however, distinctive patterns of model variable selection appeared within each group. Interestingly, the pattern of variable selection paralleled cultural theory's descriptions of each worldview. Differences in the mean perceived risk of activities also tended to correspond to predictions made by cultural theory. Results suggest two mechanisms to explain differences in perceived risk among worldviews: (i) same model variables are evaluated, but given different weight; (ii) different variables are evaluated. Identifying the relevant mechanism for a given situation may enhance the effectiveness of risk communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina G. S. Palmer, 1996. "Risk Perception: An Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Worldview and the Risk Construct," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(5), pages 717-723, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:5:p:717-723
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00820.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00820.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00820.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David R. Holtgrave & Elke U. Weber, 1993. "Dimensions of Risk Perception for Financial and Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(5), pages 553-558, October.
    2. Charles F. Keown, 1989. "Risk Perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 401-405, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gülbanu Kaptan & Shoshana Shiloh & Dilek Önkal, 2013. "Values and Risk Perceptions: A Cross‐Cultural Examination," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 318-332, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert N. Bontempo & William P. Bottom & Elke U. Weber, 1997. "Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: A Model‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 479-488, August.
    2. Zhang Jianguang, 1994. "Environmental Hazards in the Chinese Public's Eyes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 163-167, April.
    3. Frank Daumann & Florian Follert & Werner Gleißner & Endre Kamarás & Chantal Naumann, 2021. "Political Decision Making in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Germany from the Perspective of Risk Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Julian Chuk‐ling Lai & Julia Tao, 2003. "Perception of Environmental Hazards in Hong Kong Chinese," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 669-684, August.
    5. Grant, Kevin & Edgar, David & Sukumar, Arun & Meyer, Martin, 2014. "‘Risky business’: Perceptions of e-business risk by UK small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 99-122.
    6. Andersson, Lina, 2022. "Fear and Economic Behavior," Working Papers in Economics 819, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    7. Werner Gleißner & Florian Follert & Frank Daumann & Frank Leibbrand, 2021. "EU’s Ordering of COVID-19 Vaccine Doses: Political Decision-Making under Uncertainty," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-12, February.
    8. Florian Follert & Werner Gleißner & Dominik Möst, 2021. "What Can Politics Learn from Management Decisions? A Case Study of Germany’s Exit from Nuclear Energy after Fukushima," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.
    9. Mahmaod Alrawad & Abdalwali Lutfi & Mohammed Amin Almaiah & Adi Alsyouf & Hussin Mostafa Arafa & Yasser Soliman & Ibrahim A. Elshaer, 2023. "A Novel Framework of Public Risk Assessment Using an Integrated Approach Based on AHP and Psychometric Paradigm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    11. Sudeep Bhatia, 2019. "Predicting Risk Perception: New Insights from Data Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3800-3823, August.
    12. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    13. Lonzozou Kpanake & Bruno Chauvin & Etienne Mullet, 2008. "Societal Risk Perception Among African Villagers Without Access to the Media," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 193-202, February.
    14. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    15. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    16. Kathleen L. Purvis‐Roberts & Cynthia A. Werner & Irene Frank, 2007. "Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 291-302, April.
    17. Yi‐Wen Kung & Sue‐Huei Chen, 2012. "Perception of Earthquake Risk in Taiwan: Effects of Gender and Past Earthquake Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1535-1546, September.
    18. Atasoy, Özgün & Trudel, Remi & Noseworthy, Theodore J. & Kaufmann, Patrick J., 2022. "Tangibility bias in investment risk judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    19. Lerner, Jennifer & Han, Seunghee & Keltner, Dacher, 2007. "Feelings and Consumer Decision Making: Extending the Appraisal-Tendency Framework," Scholarly Articles 37143006, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    20. Mahmaod Alrawad & Abdalwali Lutfi & Sundus Alyatama & Ibrahim A. Elshaer & Mohammed Amin Almaiah, 2022. "Perception of Occupational and Environmental Risks and Hazards among Mineworkers: A Psychometric Paradigm Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:5:p:717-723. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.