IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v5y2002i2p147-165.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne Rippl

Abstract

In the 1980s, social and cultural perspectives become increasingly important in the field of risk research. In current empirical research on the influence of social and cultural factors on risk perception, the cultural theory (CT) of Douglas and Wildavsky ( Risk and Culture: An Essay on Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers , Berkeley: California University Press, 1982) is the most influential approach. In 1990 Dake introduced a measurement instrument that is used broadly in quantitative studies on cultural theory and risk. In the discussion of Dake's work, two questions have emerged as most controversial. First, can Douglas and Wildavsky's theoretical concept be tested on the basis of data obtained from individuals, as is done by Dake and many other authors? Second, does the instrument introduced by Dake ( Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 22, 61-82, 1991) show sufficient validity, in the sense that hypotheses which could be derived from CT hold true when Dake's scales are used? Both questions are addressed here. A new instrument and strategies to test the validity are introduced, which address criticisms of Dake's work.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne Rippl, 2002. "Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 147-165, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:5:y:2002:i:2:p:147-165
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870110042598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870110042598
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870110042598?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.

    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:5:y:2002:i:2:p:147-165. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.