The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: A Model‐Based Approach
Abstract
The present study assessed cross‐cultural differences in the perception of financial risks. Students at large universities in Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the U.S., as well as a group of Taiwanese security analysts rated the riskiness of a set of monetary lotteries. Risk judgments differed with nationality, but not with occupation (students vs. security analysts) and were modeled by the Conjoint Expected Risk (CER) model.(1) Consistent with cultural differences in country uncertainty avoidance,(2) CER model parameters of respondents from the two Western countries differed from those of respondents from the two countries with Chinese cultural roots: The risk judgments of respondents from Hong Kong and Taiwan were more sensitive to the magnitude of potential losses and less mitigated by the probability of positive outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 · Cited by 21,995
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutes and Organizations across Nations
(2018) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912128334 · Cited by 5,455
Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982) · Judgment under Uncertainty · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477.002 · Cited by 3,643
Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1404 · Cited by 3,183
Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1998) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205 · Cited by 900
Self-citationApproximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance
Levy, H., & Markowtiz, H. M. (1979) · American Economic Review · Cited by 849
Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice
Weber, E. U., & Milliman, R. A. (1997) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.43.2.123 · Cited by 827
Self-citationThe influence of culture on visual perception
Segall, M. H., Campbell, D. T., & Herskovits, M. J. (1966) · Cited by 756
Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982) · Judgment under Uncertainty · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477.034 · Cited by 634
Cited by
A domain‐specific risk‐attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors
Weber, E. U., Blais, A., & Betz, N. E. (2002) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.414 · Cited by 2,936
Self-citationLee, M.-C. (2009) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006 · Cited by 2,037
A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations
Blais, A.-R., & Weber, E. U. (2006) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500000334 · Cited by 1,286
Self-citationDessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & van Bavel, R. (2019) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/erae/jbz019 · Cited by 1,050
Risky business: the neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty
Platt, M. L., & Huettel, S. A. (2008) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn2062 · Cited by 556
Metadata
- Authors
- Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P., & Weber, E. U.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-08
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 479-488
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2074982085
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: A Model‐Based Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00888.x
- The paper
- Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P., & Weber, E. U. (1997). Cross‐Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: A Model‐Based Approach. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00888.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
