Sjoberg (2002). Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyind what is immediately given

Prof. Sjoberg of Center of Risk Research in Sweden wrote an article about risk perception and the factors shaping it. He mainly focused on two technologies: gene technology and nuclear power.

As indicated by the title, this study goes beyond the properties of risks, which most scholars took as the essence of risk research. Specifically, he looked at other factors, such as the relationship between nature and technology as well as various types of trust with respect to their ability in accounting for public risk perception. In addition, he also examined how utility (benefit), risk, trust, and active risk denial accounted for general attitudes toward technology.

He found that the traditional "psychometric model," in which dread and novelty were considered as the main determinants of public risk perception, accounted for only limited proportion of variance. The addition of the variable--tampering with nature--increased the model's explanatory power. Furthermore, he contends that worldviews were not a good predictor of risk perception.

His result also indicated a less strong relationship between trust and risk perception than that of Siegrist (The influence of trust...on the acceptance of gene technology, 2000, Risk Analysis). He attributed this difference to measurement. Whereas Siegrist used the Likert scale for his measure of trust and risk, Sjoberg used ratings. Sjoberg demonstrated in this study how the "common response factor" may heighten the relationship between trust and risk, a very interesting methodological point.

In general, attitudes toward technology were accounted for mostly by perception of the benefits, followed by risks and, sometimes, the technology's "replacibility." The consequence of a risk was also found to exert more impact on public attitudes than the size of the risk itself.

This study overall laid out a bunch of important factors shaping public perception of risks and attitudes toward technology. However, it seems to me that too many variables were examined without a coherent theme explicating why these factors should be explored together with each other. Furthermore, as with other risk research, this study ask its respondents how "risky" a technology is without exploring the specific risks associated with these technologies. For example, people may consider nuclear power as risky because of the risks in relation to radiation, waste management, and safety, but not other areas. Of course, the 109 college student sample also posed questions for the generalizability of his results.

Asia Values

While I was rummaging literature about worldview differences between West and Asia, I found several useful databases that may provide quantitative evidence. Because large-scale, cross-cultural surveys are relatively few in Asia than in the US (e.g., NES, GSS...) and in Europe (Eurobarometer), I think it's worth a note.

1. Asiabarometer is a comparative survey in Asia, covering East, Southeast, South and Central Asia. A Japanese scholar is in charge of the center. Many cross-national studies are based on the datasets. The data can be downloaded either at its Web site or through ICPSR, of which the University of Wisconsin is a member.

2. Asian Barometer is surprisingly different from the previous dataset. It is maintained by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, National Taiwan University. The survey includes some interesting questions about "traditional Chinese values;" for example, "it is a shame for a man to work for a woman." There are also measures about political participation, media use, and national identity.

3. East Asia Value Survey. Unlike the previous two, which focus more on the "opinion" aspect, EAVS emphasizes the "value" aspect. For example, EAVS probes the relationship between human and nature or people's environmental beliefs. Taiwan is also included in this survey.

The Democracy Study Center at UC-Irvine actually compiled a webpage that includes many international survey databases.

A ASEP/JDS-maintained website also gives good resources for comparative studies.