Cited by 237Risk Perception and ManagementDisaster Management and ResilienceDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perceptions of Disasters

Gierlach, Elaine, Belsher, Bradley E., Beutler, Larry E.·2010·Risk Analysis

Abstract

Public risk perceptions of mass disasters carry considerable influences, both psychologically and economically, despite their oft-times imprecise nature. Prior research has identified the presence of an optimistic bias that affects risk perception, but there is a dearth of literature examining how these perceptions differ among cultures-particularly with regard to mass disasters. The present study explores differences among Japanese, Argentinean, and North American mental health workers in their rates of the optimistic bias in risk perceptions as contrasted between natural disasters and terrorist events. The results indicate a significant difference among cultures in levels of perceived risk that do not correspond to actual exposure rates. Japanese groups had the highest risk perceptions for both types of hazards and North Americans and Argentineans had the lowest risk perceptions for terrorism. Additionally, participants across all cultures rated risk to self as lower than risk to others (optimistic bias) across all disaster types. These findings suggest that cultural factors may have a greater influence on risk perception than social exposure, and that the belief that one is more immune to disasters compared to others may be a cross-cultural phenomenon.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01451.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gierlach, E., Belsher, B. E., & Beutler, L. E.
Affiliations
Palo Alto University (US)
Corresponding author
Gierlach, Elaine
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-12
Volume
30
Issue
10
Pages
1539-1549
ISSN
0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138878894
Cited by
237
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
20.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Risk Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
risk perception, cross-cultural comparison, optimism bias, mass disasters, natural disasters, terrorism, mental health professionals, Japanese, North Americans
MeSH terms
Argentina, Attitude, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Disasters, Humans, Individuality, Japan, Psychometrics, Social Behavior, United States, Risk Assessment, Terrorism, Uncertainty, Tsunamis

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