Social and Ethnic Variations in Risk Perceptions Evidence from Sweden

1. Social and Ethnic Variations in Risk PerceptionsEvidence from Sweden Susanna Öhman, Anna Olofsson and Saman Rashid

2. Crisis and Risk in a Heterogeneous Society (CRIHS) • Multi-disciplinary research group • Risk and ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, age and urban–rural residency • Projects: • Risk perceptions & sense-making of risk collaboration with University of Glamorgan • Inter-organizational cooperation • Terrorism • Crisis communication • www.miun.se/crihs Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

3. Main aim is to show the role gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability play for people’s risk perceptions and safety behaviour Two studies: Study 1: Testing gender and foreign background on attitudes to 17 different risks (The White Male Effect) Study 2: Testing gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability on 3 different categories of risk and 2 safety behaviours Conclusions and policy implications Presentation out-line Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

4. Background • Increased heterogeneity • Demographic changes • Change in attitudes • Earlier research (mainly from the United States) • Differences in risk perceptions, the so-called White Male Effect (WME) • Values as a way of understanding the WME (Cultural theory) • Few studies of the role of sexual orientation and disability • Current study • Cultural theory (4 world views: Individualism, Fatalism, Egalitarianism and Hierarchy) • Vulnerability: Earlier experience & social exclusion Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

5. Method and material • Swedish national survey (Society and Values) on risk perception, risk communication, risk behaviour, experiences and values • Postal questionnaire during the winter 2005/06 • The dataset is composed of two representative samples of the Swedish population aged 16-75 • A national random sample (n=2000, response rate 59%) • An oversample of people with foreign background (n=750, response rate 39%) Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

6. Study 1: The White Male Effect in Sweden • Is there a White Male Effect (WME) in Sweden? • Do native men have lower risk perceptions than native women, as well as men and women with foreign background? Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

7. Natural Disasters BSE Terrorism Smoking Stress Epidemics HIV GM Food Fires Transportation Climate Change Violence Cancer and other serious illnesses Traffic Accidents Alcohol Accidents (free time) Technological Systems 17 different risks How big do you think the risk is for You personally to be harmed by: Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

8. Descriptives (non-controlled) Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

9. Dependent variables Risk perceptions The 17 different risks Risk for “me” Control variables Age (16-75) Income (Low, Mid, High) Investigated factors Explanatory variables • White Male Effect • Gender • Foreign background • Values: World views • Individualism • Fatalism • Egalitarian • Hierarchy • Vulnerability • Earlier experience of crisis • Social exclusion Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

10. Estimation results (controlled) Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

11. Conclusions of Study 1 • No consistent differences between men and women • Consistent differences between native people and people with foreign background • The White Male Effect can not be confirmed in Sweden • Differentiation between categories of risks Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

12. Study 2: Expanding the model • Sexual orientation & Disability • Is there a White Heterosexual Non-disabled Male Effect? • Does the “effect” vary with different categories of risks? • How about safety behaviour? Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

13. Study 2Investigated factors Dependent variables • Risk perceptions • Known risks • Controlled risks • Dread risks • Safety Behaviour • Traffic • Sex and violence Control variables • Age (16-75) • Income (Low, Mid, High) Explanatory variables • Heterogeneity • Gender • Foreign background • Sexual orientation • Disabilities • Values: World Views • Individualism • Fatalism • Egalitarian • Hierarchy • Vulnerability • Earlier experience of crisis • Social exclusion Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

14. Estimation results (controlled)Risk perceptions Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

15. Estimation results (controlled)Safety behaviour Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

16. Conclusions of Study 2 • In addition to gender and ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability, influence both risk perceptions and safety behaviour • Sexual orientation • Controlled risks (smoking, drinking etc.) • Sex and violence risk behaviour • Disability • Known risks (traffic accidents, diseases etc.) • To incorporate heterogeneity and vulnerability, adds to the understanding of risk perception and behaviour by partly shifting focus to social differentiation Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

17. Main conclusions • Heterogeneity, in terms of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability, is important to consider in relation to risk • The effect of heterogeneity is context dependent • Gender is not as important in Sweden as in the U.S. • Equality a probable explanation • Risk perception and safety behaviour depends on type of risk • Important to identify the combination of heterogeneity and kind of risk • Heterogeneity intermediates influences rather than explains • Important to consider heterogeneity in risk policy and risk communication • Adjust messages according to target group • Dialog and two way communication Risk in Societal and Inter-Generational Perspective, London

18. Thank you for listening!