바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

  • KOREAN
  • P-ISSN1229-067X
  • E-ISSN2734-1127
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.3

Citation Share

Differences between Experts and Lay People in Worldviews and Risk Perception: Examining a Culture Theory

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2008, v.27 no.3, pp.635-651



& (2008). Differences between Experts and Lay People in Worldviews and Risk Perception: Examining a Culture Theory. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 27(3), 635-651.

Abstract

The present study examined a culture theory regarding the relations between worldviews and risk perception of lay people (N=350) and experts (N=190) in science and technology. The culture theory suggests that worldviews are associated with concerns about distinct types of risks and that risk perception can be explained by worldviews. We explored this hypothesis because lay people and experts show difference in worldviews and risk perception and because the variance in risk perception are predicted by worldviews. Both group showed qualitative and quantitative differences in correlations between worldviews and risk perception. Most difference emerged from the risks in scientific technology such as nuclear power as shown by experts. While lay people showed positive correlations between egalitarianism and perception of risks, experts showed negative correlations. The hypothesis of the culture theory about relations between worldviews and risk perception was confirmed only for lay people. The variances in risk perception explained by worldviews and also by trust were very different for both groups, specially in technology risks. Worldviews were significant predictors of risk perception for expert, but not for lay people. Contrary to worldviews, trust explained the risk perception for lay people, but not for experts. The results of present study were discussed in the context of culture theory and the characteristics of risk perception of the Korean people.

keywords
Worldviews, risk perception, culture theory, expert, knowledge, trust, Worldviews, risk perception, culture theory, expert, knowledge, trust, 세계관, 위험지각, 문화이론, 과학기술전문가, 지식, 신뢰

Reference

1.

김서용 (2005). 환경갈등의 문화적 분석: 새만금 개발 사업을 중심으로. 한국행정학보, 39(3), 43-66.

2.

이영애, 이나경 (2005). 위험지각의 심리적 차원. 인지과학, 16(3). 199-211.

3.

Boholm, A. (1996). Risk perception and social anthropology: critique of culture theory. Ethnos, 61, 64-84.

4.

Brenot, J., Bonnefous, S. & Marris, C. (1998). Testing the culture theory of risk in france. Risk Analysis, 18(6), 729-739.

5.

Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61-82.

6.

Dake, K. & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119, 41-60.

7.

Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley.

8.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Science, 9, 127-152.

9.

Jenkins-Smith, H. (1994). Nuclear imagery and regional stigma: Testing hypotheses of image acquisition and valuation regarding Nevada. University of New Mexico, Institute for Public Policy, Albuquergue, NM.

10.

Kraus, N., Malmfors, T. & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis 12, 215-232.

11.

Lima, M.L. & Castro, P. (2005). Culture theory meets the community: Worldviews and local issues. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 23-35.

12.

Marris, C., Langford, I.H. & O'Riordan, T. (1998). A quantitative test of the culture theory of risk perception: Comparison with psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18, 635-647.

13.

Peters, E. & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1427-1453.

14.

Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M. & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1289-1299.

15.

Seifert, F. & Torgerson, H. (1995). Attitudes towards Biotechnology in Austria: Can “Culture theory” explain empirical data? Discussion paper, Institute of Technology Assessment, Vienna, Austria.

16.

Siegrist, M. & Cvetovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.

17.

Sjoeberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perception: An empirical evaluation of culture theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 2(2), 113-130.

18.

Sjoeberg, L. (1999). Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 1-9.

19.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.

20.

Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intuitive toxicology: Experts and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15, 661-675.

21.

Thompon, M., Ellis, R. & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy