IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v2y1999i3p219-241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk perception in China and Australia: an exploratory crosscultural study

Author

Listed:
  • Bernd Rohrmann
  • Huichang Chen

Abstract

Perceptions and subjective evaluations of risky activities and environmental conditions were explored in several 'Western' and 'Eastern' countries, based on a socio-psychological approach. The aim of these crosscultural studies is to analyse the cognitive structure of judgments about the magnitude and acceptability of risks to which individuals are exposed: to compare risk judgments across countries of different cultural background in which risk issues in general as well as particular risk sources (e.g., industrial facilities or natural hazards) have distinct salience, and to examine disparities between societal groups which differ in their professional background. In the current project, fully comparable data were collected in China (N = 270) and Australia (N = 203), utilizing psychometric instruments. The sampling in both countries focused on 3 groups of students (i.e., geography, psychology, engineering) and a group of scientists/researchers. Participants were asked for judgments on 25 hazards (based on a taxonomy) according to 12 risk aspects (derived from a structural risk perception model). Data comparisons for countries, for societal groups and for types of risks yield a complex picture. Crosscultural disparities are evident in two ways: there is considerable crossnational variation in risk perception, and groups affiliated with particular professional orientations differ in their judgment and evaluation of hazards as well. A major disparity between the two country data is that the Chinese respondents seem to be less prepared than the Australian ones to accept risks in principal (while there is no difference in the mean of risk magnitude ratings). Regarding specific hazards, the largest differences emerge forhazards related to politically ormorally 'banned' activities, such as gambling, using hallucinogenic drugs or unsafe sex. With respect to the 'cognitive structure' underlying risk evaluations, the main influences are similar for the compared samples. Altogetherthe results demonstrate the strong influence of socio-psychological variables and the cultural context on risk evaluations. However, the empirical basis for the findings gained so far is still small and generalizability restricted. A wider range of cultures needs to be looked at in order to clarify further the influence of cultural factors on the cognition and evaluation of risks. Such research is under way.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernd Rohrmann & Huichang Chen, 1999. "Risk perception in China and Australia: an exploratory crosscultural study," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(3), pages 219-241, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:2:y:1999:i:3:p:219-241
    DOI: 10.1080/136698799376817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/136698799376817
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/136698799376817?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
    ---><---

    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. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1993. "Determinants of Risk-Taking: Behavioral and Economic Views," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 49-73, January.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Tadeusz Tyszka, 1995. "Perception and Acceptance of Technological and Environmental Risks: Why Are Poor Countries Less Concerned?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 733-743, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    3. Philip Völlers & Thomas Neise & Philip Verfürth & Martin Franz & Felix Bücken & Kim Philip Schumacher, 2023. "Revisiting risk in the Global Production Network approach 2.0 - Towards a performative risk narrative perspective," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 55(8), pages 1838-1858, November.
    4. Sebastian Hain, 2011. "Risk perception and risk management in the Middle East market: theory and practice of multinational enterprises in Saudi Arabia," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(7), pages 819-835, August.
    5. Ole Jakob Bergfjord, 2009. "Risk perception and risk management in Norwegian aquaculture," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 91-104, January.
    6. Qiuyan Liao & Wendy Wing Tak Lam & Chao Qiang Jiang & Ella Yuk Yi Ho & Yi Min Liu & Wei Sen Zhang & Fielding Richard, 2009. "Avian Influenza Risk Perception and Live Poultry Purchase in Guangzhou, China, 2006," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 416-424, 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. Hajibaba, Homa & Gretzel, Ulrike & Leisch, Friedrich & Dolnicar, Sara, 2015. "Crisis-resistant tourists," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 46-60.
    2. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Iuliana Pascu & Mark R. Cullen, 2012. "How General Are Risk Preferences? Choices under Uncertainty in Different Domains," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2606-2638, October.
    3. Wen‐Qiang Bian & L. Robin Keller, 1999. "Chinese and Americans Agree on What Is Fair, but Disagree on What Is Best in Societal Decisions Affecting Health and Safety Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 439-452, June.
    4. Bryan L. Williams & Sylvia Brown & Michael Greenberg & Mokbul A. Kahn, 1999. "Risk Perception in Context: The Savannah River Site Stakeholder Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1019-1035, December.
    5. Annette Hofmann & Julia K. Neumann & Peter Zweifel, 2019. "Risky health decisions under regulatory constraints: Abortion tourism in Switzerland," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 203-237, December.
    6. John Nkwoma Inekwe, 2020. "Market uncertainty, risk aversion, and macroeconomic expectations," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1977-1995, October.
    7. Les Coleman, 2004. "New light on the longshot bias," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 315-326.
    8. Bleichrodt, Han & Gafni, Amiram, 1996. "Time preference, the discounted utility model and health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 49-66, February.
    9. Kjell Hausken, 2002. "Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Game Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 17-27, February.
    10. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    11. Wen Hsu & Bing-Fang Hwang & Chau-Ren Jung & Yau-Huo Jimmy Shr, 2021. "Can Air Pollution Save Lives? Air Quality and Risky Behaviors on Roads," Papers 2111.06837, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2021.
    12. Fellner, Gerlinde & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2007. "Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 338-350, June.
    13. Marek Walacik & Aneta Chmielewska, 2024. "Energy Performance in Residential Buildings as a Property Market Efficiency Driver," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-18, May.
    14. Sanjaya, Muhammad Ryan, 2013. "On the source of risk aversion in Indonesia using micro data 2007," Economics Discussion Papers 2013-33, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    15. Connor, Robert A., 1996. "More than risk reduction: The investment appeal of insurance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-54, February.
    16. Cristina Bernini & Silvia Emili & Federica Galli, 2021. "Does urbanization matter in the expenditure‐happiness nexus?," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(6), pages 1403-1428, December.
    17. Nicholas Apergis & Tasawar Hayat & Tareq Saeed, 2019. "The Role of Happiness in Financial Decisions: Evidence from Financial Portfolio Choice and Five European Countries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 47(3), pages 343-360, September.
    18. Stefan Borsky & Paul A. Raschky, "undated". "Estimating the Option Value of Exercising Risk-taking Behavior with the Hedonic Market Approach," Working Papers 2008-14, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    19. Shr, Yau-Huo & Hsu, Wen & Hwang, Bing-Fang & Jung, Chau-Ren, 2023. "Air quality and risky behaviors on roads," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    20. Li, Sanxi & Sun, Hailin & Wang, Tong & Yu, Jun, 2016. "Assortative matching and risk sharing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 248-275.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:2:y:1999:i:3:p:219-241. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.