IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v25y2005i5p1229-1239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception and Technological Development at a Societal Level

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Luisa Lima
  • Julie Barnett
  • Jorge Vala

Abstract

This article tests the hypothesis that the exposure to the threat to societies posed by the introduction of new technologies is associated with a normalization of risk perception. Data collected in 2000 by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) on environmental issues were used to explore this hypothesis. Representative samples from 25 countries were employed to assess the national levels of perceived threat to the environment associated with a series of technologies and activities. These values were correlated with economic indicators (mainly from the World Bank) of the diffusion of each of the technologies or activities in each country. Results indicate a negative association of risk perception with the level of technological prevalence (societal normalization effect) and a positive association with the rate of growth of the technology (societal sensitivity effect). These results indicate that the most acute levels of perceived environmental risk are found in those countries where the level of technological prevalence is low but where there has recently been substantial technological development. Environmental awareness is a mediator of the relationship between risk perception and the indices of technological diffusion. This result means that: (1) societal normalization of risk is not a direct consequence of prevalence of the technology, but is driven by awareness of technological development and that (2) societal sensitivity to risk is associated with lower levels of environmental awareness.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Luisa Lima & Julie Barnett & Jorge Vala, 2005. "Risk Perception and Technological Development at a Societal Level," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1229-1239, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1229-1239
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00664.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00664.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00664.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. Michael K. Lindell & Timothy C. Earle, 1983. "How Close Is Close Enough: Public Perceptions of the Risks of Industrial Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 245-253, December.
    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. Julie Barnett & Glynis M. Breakwell, 2001. "Risk Perception and Experience: Hazard Personality Profiles and Individual Differences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 171-178, February.
    4. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    5. Donald MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Robert G. Mason & John Detweiler & Stephen E. Binney & Brian Dodd, 1994. "Perceived Risks of Radioactive Waste Transport Through Oregon: Results of a Statewide Survey," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 5-14, February.
    6. Clare L Twigger-Ross & Glynis M Breakwell, 1999. "Relating risk experience, venturesomeness and risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 73-83, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    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. Marco Dettori & Paola Pittaluga & Giulia Busonera & Carmelo Gugliotta & Antonio Azara & Andrea Piana & Antonella Arghittu & Paolo Castiglia, 2020. "Environmental Risks Perception Among Citizens Living Near Industrial Plants: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Silvia Ruggieri & Sabina Maltese & Gaspare Drago & Simona Panunzi & Fabio Cibella & Fabrizio Bianchi & Fabrizio Minichilli & Liliana Cori, 2021. "Measuring Risk Perception in Pregnant Women in Heavily Polluted Areas: A New Methodological Approach from the NEHO Birth Cohort," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Chankook Park & Min Jeong, 2021. "A Study of Factors Influencing on Passive and Active Acceptance of Home Energy Management Services with Internet of Things," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Malcolm P. Cutchin & Kathryn Remmes Martin & Steven V. Owen & James S. Goodwin, 2008. "Concern About Petrochemical Health Risk Before and After a Refinery Explosion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 589-601, June.
    5. Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2008. "How a System Backfires: Dynamics of Redundancy Problems in Security," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1669-1687, December.
    6. Wenyan Wu & Lu Li & Hanxin Chen & Minyue Xu & Yalin Yuan, 2022. "Farmers’ Preference for Participating in Rural Solid Waste Management: A Case Study from Shaanxi Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Tyron Louw & Ruth Madigan & Yee Mun Lee & Sina Nordhoff & Esko Lehtonen & Satu Innamaa & Fanny Malin & Afsane Bjorvatn & Natasha Merat, 2021. "Drivers’ Intentions to Use Different Functionalities of Conditionally Automated Cars: A Survey Study of 18,631 Drivers from 17 Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-19, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    3. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    4. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    5. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    6. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    7. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Agathe Backer‐Grøndahl & Aslak Fyhri & Pål Ulleberg & Astrid Helene Amundsen, 2009. "Accidents and Unpleasant Incidents: Worry in Transport and Prediction of Travel Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1217-1226, September.
    9. Veronika Villnow & Meike Rombach & Vera Bitsch, 2019. "Examining German Media Coverage of the Re-Evaluation of Glyphosate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    11. Peter Kamstra & Brian Cook & David M. Kennedy & Barbara Brighton, 2018. "Treating risk as relational on shore platforms and implications for public safety on microtidal rocky coasts," 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. 91(3), pages 1299-1316, April.
    12. Ethan T. Knocke & Korine N. Kolivras, 2007. "Flash Flood Awareness in Southwest Virginia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 155-169, February.
    13. Goodfellow, Martin J. & Williams, Hugo R. & Azapagic, Adisa, 2011. "Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6199-6210, October.
    14. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Virna Vaneza Gutiérrez, 2008. "Participant-focused analysis: explanatory power of the classic psychometric paradigm in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 735-753, September.
    17. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    18. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    19. Lennart Sjöberg, 2002. "Are Received Risk Perception Models Alive and Well?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 665-669, August.
    20. Julie L. Demuth, 2018. "Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tornadoes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1921-1943, September.

    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:25:y:2005:i:5:p:1229-1239. 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.