IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v40y2011i3p487-499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Academic discipline and risk perception of technologies: An empirical study

Author

Listed:
  • Weisenfeld, Ursula
  • Ott, Ingrid

Abstract

This article brings together two areas of research: studies on risk perception of technologies and studies on vocational/career choice. This is an important link since decisions concerning technologies are influenced by decision makers' risk perceptions and these in turn may be related to educational and career paths. We analyze students of different academic disciplines with regard to their risk perception of four technologies. The aim is to find out whether there is a relationship between area of study (as a precursor of vocational and career choice) and risk perception of technologies regarding health, environment and society. The four technologies under study are renewable energies, genetic engineering, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies (ICT). Key results are: irrespective of academic discipline risk of genetic engineering on average is rated highest and renewable energies lowest. This holds for all the risks studied (environmental, health, societal risks). On average, students from different academic disciplines differ in their risk perception. Factor analyses show that common dimensions of risk are the technologies and not the kind of risk. Regression analyses show that the variables influencing perceived risks vary between the technological fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Weisenfeld, Ursula & Ott, Ingrid, 2011. "Academic discipline and risk perception of technologies: An empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 487-499, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:3:p:487-499
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(10)00254-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Rip, Arie & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 871-879, July.
    2. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    3. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    4. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 2000. "Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 123-156, September.
    5. Kim, Jerry W. & Higgins, Monica C., 2007. "Where do alliances come from?: The effects of upper echelons on alliance formation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 499-514, May.
    6. Rabik Ar Chatterjee & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 1990. "The Innovation Diffusion Process in a Heterogeneous Population: A Micromodeling Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(9), pages 1057-1079, September.
    7. John H. Roberts & Glen L. Urban, 1988. "Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 167-185, February.
    8. Mark Elchardus & Bram Spruyt, 2009. "The Culture of Academic Disciplines and the Sociopolitical Attitudes of Students: A Test of Selection and Socialization Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(2), pages 446-460, June.
    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. Elizabeth A. Corley & Barry Bozeman & Xuefan Zhang & Chin-Chang Tsai, 2019. "The expanded scientific and technical human capital model: the addition of a cultural dimension," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 681-699, June.
    2. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Hauerwaas, Antoniya & Elshiewy, Ossama & Halder, Pradipta & Wesseler, Justus & Cingiz, Kutay & Broer, Inge, 2023. "Beyond plastic – Consumers prefer food packaging derived from genetically modified plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    3. Luke Pavia & Simon Grima & Inna Romanova & Jonathan V. Spiteri, 2021. "Fine Art Insurance Policies and Risk Perceptions: The Case of Malta," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Adanu, Kwami & Hoehn, John P. & Norris, Patricia & Iglesias, Emma, 2012. "Voter decisions on eminent domain and police power reforms," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 187-194.
    5. Jacqueline Noga & Gregor Wolbring, 2014. "Views on Water Management from Students of Different Faculties at the University of Calgary: Developing Water Policies Using Focus Groups," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(5), pages 189-189, September.
    6. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.

    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. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Ott, Ingrid, 2009. "Self-selection, socialization, and risk perception: an empirical study," Kiel Working Papers 1555, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Vardit Landsman & Moshe Givon, 2010. "The diffusion of a new service: Combining service consideration and brand choice," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 91-121, March.
    3. Marshall, Pablo & Dockendorff, Monika & Ibáñez, Soledad, 2013. "A forecasting system for movie attendance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1800-1806.
    4. Inseong Song & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2003. "A Micromodel of New Product Adoption with Heterogeneous and Forward-Looking Consumers: Application to the Digital Camera Category," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 371-407, December.
    5. Chaab, Jafar & Salhab, Rabih & Zaccour, Georges, 2022. "Dynamic pricing and advertising in the presence of strategic consumers and social contagion: A mean-field game approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Francesco Bogliacino & Giorgio Rampa, 2012. "Quality risk aversion, conjectures, and new product diffusion," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1081-1115, November.
    7. Eslami, Hossein & Krishnan, Trichy, 2023. "New sustainable product adoption: The role of economic and social factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    8. Kim, Namwoon & Srivastava, Rajendra K. & Han, Jin K., 2001. "Consumer decision-making in a multi-generational choice set context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 123-136, September.
    9. Zhiling Guo & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Multigeneration Product Diffusion in the Presence of Strategic Consumers," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 206-224, March.
    10. Mathew B. Chylinski & John H. Roberts & Bruce G. S. Hardie, 2012. "Consumer Learning of New Binary Attribute Importance Accounting for Priors, Bias, and Order Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 549-566, July.
    11. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga & Jon Barrutia, 2012. "Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 253-268, April.
    12. Inwon Kang & Deokhee Cheon & Matthew Shin, 2011. "Advertising strategy for outbound travel services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 5(4), pages 361-380, December.
    13. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    14. Venkatesh Shankar & Pablo Azar & Matthew Fuller, 2008. "—: A Multicategory Brand Equity Model and Its Application at Allstate," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 567-584, 07-08.
    15. Edgardo Arturo Ayala Gaytán, 2009. "Social network externalities and price dispersion in online markets," Ensayos Revista de Economia, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Facultad de Economia, vol. 0(2), pages 1-28, November.
    16. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    17. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2011. "Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Katarzyna Stasiuk & Dominika Maison, 2022. "The Influence of New and Old Energy Labels on Consumer Judgements and Decisions about Household Appliances," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, February.
    19. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Anthony Ryan & Clive L Spash & Thomas G Measham, 2009. "Household Water Collection in Canberra," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-06, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

    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:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:3:p:487-499. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.