Individual differences in the judgment of risks: Sociodemographic characteristics, cultural orientation, and level of expertise

Abstract

This chapter presents a detailed overview of the risk perception research that has been conducted on some individual differences in the judgment of risks. Among the individual differentiation factors examined here are the sociodemographic characteristics of individuals (e.g., gender, ethnicity). An important finding of this first part is that sex and race are strongly related to risk judgments. White men tend to judge risks as smaller and less problematic than do women and non-white men. A variety of explanations has been developed to account for this white male effect (as well as other sociodemographic differences). To date, (1) being in advantageous positions in terms of power, control over risks, and benefit from them, in conjunction with (2) selecting risk information in a manner supportive of his/her cultural orientation, appear to be the most plausible explanations of the low (versus high)-risk sensitivity. Part 2 is devoted to another important source of individual differences in risk perception, documenting the role of cultural worldviews in shaping individual risk perceptions. In this regard, the cultural cognition thesis is outlined as one of a variety of approaches for understanding the influence of such sociocultural values on risk perception. According to this approach, individuals form risk perceptions that cohere with values characteristic of groups with which they identify. The last part is focused on the striking differences of opinion between experts and the public. Experts generally rate risk as lower and as synonymous with statistical data. Lay people tend to have a broader and more qualitative conception of risk. Both technical risk assessments and public perceptions of risk, however, are recognized as subjective and value-laden views. Accordingly, it is also argued that members of the public and experts may disagree about risk because they have different worldviews, different affective experiences, and a low versus high level of trust in risk regulatory authorities.