A DISCUSSION OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE PSYCHOMETRIC AND CULTURAL THEORY APPROACHES TO RISK PERCEPTION

Risk perception has traditionally been conceived as a cognitive phenom enon, basically a question of information processing. The very term pe rception suggests that information processing is involved and of cruci al importance. Kahneman and Tversky suggested that the use of 'heurist ics' in the intuitive estimation of probabilities accounts for biased probability perception, hence claiming to explain risk perception as w ell. The psychometric approach of Slovic er al, a further step in the cognitive tradition, conceives of perceived risk as a function of gene ral properties of a hazard. However, the psychometric approach is show n here to explain only about 20% of the variance of perceived risk, ev en less of risk acceptability. Its claim to explanatory power is based on a statistical illusion: mean Values were investigated and accounte d for, across hazards. A currently popular alternative to the psychome tric tradition, Cultural Theory, is even less successful and explains only about 5% of the variance of perceived risk. The claims of this ap proach were also based on a statistical illusion: 'significant' result s were reported and interpreted as being of substantial importance. Th e present paper presents a new approach: attitude to the risk generati ng technology, general sensitivity to risks and specific risk explaine d well over 60% of the variance of perceived risk of nuclear waste, in a study of extensive data from a representative sample of the Swedish population. The attitude component functioning as an explanatory fact or of perceived risk, rather than as a consequence of perceived risk, suggests strongly that perceived risk is something other than cognitio n. Implications for risk communication are discussed.