Susanna Öhman

General Beliefs and Environmental Concern: Transatlantic Comparisons.

The aim of the study was to empirically test whether grouping people according to their general beliefs, combined with positional factors, can explain environmental concern, and whether there are country differences in this respect. The study is based on the United States, Canadian, Norwegian, and Swedish parts of The International Social Survey Program (ISSP) survey 2000 on environmental concern. The four countries were paired resulting in a comparison between North America and Scandinavia. The results showed that general beliefs, together with education and political affiliation, were the most stable predictors of environmental concern, and that adding general beliefs to the analysis improves the explanatory power in a significant way.

Cosmopolitans and Locals

The aim of this study is to empirically test Roudometofs suggested one-dimensional operationalization of transnationalism, from cosmopolitanism to localism, and compare it with an alternative two-dimensional operationalization. The study uses Swedish survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), for 1995 and 2003. The results indicate that a two-dimensional, rather than a one-dimensional, solution fits the data better. Transnationalism can therefore be seen as one dimension ranging from local to global and one ranging from protectionism to openness. The same result was obtained for both 1995 and 2003. The results also show that people with different attitudes differ socioeconomically and that there is a trend over time towards more protectionist, rather than open, attitudes among the Swedish public.

Cosmopolitans and Locals: An Empirical Investigation of Transnationalism

The aim of this study is to empirically test Roudometofs suggested one-dimensional operationalization of transnationalism, from cosmopolitanism to localism, and compare it with an alternative two-dimensional operationalization. The study uses Swedish survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), for 1995 and 2003. The results indicate that a two-dimensional, rather than a one-dimensional, solution fits the data better. Transnationalism can therefore be seen as one dimension ranging from local to global and one ranging from protectionism to openness. The same result was obtained for both 1995 and 2003. The results also show that people with different attitudes differ socioeconomically and that there is a trend over time towards more protectionist, rather than open, attitudes among the Swedish public.

Views of Risk in Sweden: Global Fatalism and Local Control - An Empirical Investigation of Ulrich Beck's Theory of New Risks

Ulrich Becks theory of risk society has been criticised because there is lack of empirical evidence. By comparing people with different life contexts and experiences, the aim of this study was to investigate how these people view risk, and if ‘new’ risks are perceived differently by different groups in society. Five focus‐group interviews were conducted in Sweden, in 2004/05, with people in rural and urban areas, people with a foreign background and experts. The groups consisted of four people each and lasted for two hours. The results show that ‘new’ risks are not something people worry about; ‘risk’ is associated with personal experiences and life context. This indicates a traditional or at least modern way of viewing risk, and contradicts the idea of a reflexive view of risk. However, a division between the urban versus the rural‐migrant groups appears: the expert‐urban groups show a more global—fatalistic strategy to handle of risk, while the rural—migrant group shows a more traditional approach to risk, where control and the local context are in focus.

The role of similarity cues in the development of trust in sources of information about GM food.

In evaluating complex new technologies, people are usually dependent on information provided by others, for example, experts or journalists, and have to determine whether they can trust these information sources. This article focuses on similarity as the basis for trust. The first experiment (N = 261) confirmed that a journalist writing about genetically modified (GM) food was trusted more when his attitude was congruent with that of his readers. In addition, the experiment showed that this effect was mediated by the perceived similarity of the journalist. The second experiment (N = 172) revealed that trust in a journalist writing about the focal domain of GM food was even influenced by him expressing a congruent attitude in an unrelated domain. This result supports a general similarity account of the congruence effect on trust, as opposed to a confirmatory bias account.

ATTITUDES TO GENE TECHNOLOGY: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS

ABSTRACT This is a study of the relationship between trust in institutions and attitudes to gene technology in general, and GM food and stem cell research in particular. The role of so-called active trust is emphasised, meaning that trust is neither conceived as a trait nor a one-dimensional concept. The study uses data from a Eurobarometer survey of gene technology in Europe, conducted in 2002. Peoples attitudes in five European counties, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and United Kingdom are compared, and the significance of trust in institutions in these countries is investigated. The results show that trust in institutions has an impact on attitudes to gene technology. Trust in experts, stakeholders and official bodies are associated with positive attitudes to GM food and stem cell research, whereas trust in Non-Governmental Organisations is associated with negative perceptions of these technologies. This confirms the significant role of active trust.

An intersectional risk approach for environmental sociology

The objective of this article is to further develop intersectional perspectives and feminist knowledge in environmental sociology. Environmental sociology has developed a critical theoretical frame with which to describe the social construction of risk, and this article further develops the understanding of the complex multidimensionality of the social relations that shape the lived experience of risk. An analytical and integrating discourse that acknowledges the connectedness of these dimensions and the influence of their interactions on the representation, production and reproduction of risk in society remains an unrealized ambition. Intersectional risk theory shows that risk is constituted and produced in social and geographic spaces, as well as the various power relations that prevail there, and consequently, risk is not only defined and managed differently but also the intersections of privilege and subordination are themselves reproduced through risk management. Using climate risks as a starting point, we propose a perspective for the study of risks that analyses the dynamic, ambiguous character of the doing of risk. Our intent is to investigate how risk discourses are entangled with the doing of class, gender and race, as well as with the differentiation between human and nature.

Vulnerability, values and heterogeneity: one step further to understand risk perception and behaviour

The aim is to investigate differences in risk perception and behaviour among different population groups selected by gender, age, country of birth, disability and sexual orientation in the light of general values and vulnerability. The analyses use data from two Swedish national surveys from 2005 to 2008. People with foreign background perceive controlled and dread risks as a greater threat than do native-born people, but there is no difference in behaviour when general values and vulnerability have been controlled for. Compared to women, men rate known and dread risks as lower, but controlled risks as higher. Further, men’s behaviour is more risk-oriented and less risk-reducing, and homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to report risk behaviour. Compared to previous studies of the so-called White Male Effect carried out in the USA, gender does not play a similar role in Sweden. On the contrary, it seems as if gender is of less importance and that the strength of the association varies depending on type of risk or risk behaviour.

Doing and undoing risk: the mutual constitution of risk and heteronormativity in contemporary society

This paper develops the concepts of ‘doing’ and ‘undoing’ risk, a new approach to risk research that echoes the ‘doing gender’ of gender studies. In this way, we combine intersectional and risk theory and apply the new perspective to empirical material. To better explore the doing and undoing, or the performance, of risk, we will refer to practices that simultaneously (re)produce and hide socio-political norms and positions, played out in contemporary, hierarchical relations of power and knowledge. The aim is to develop a theoretical understanding of doing and undoing risk. The study makes use of transcripts from five focus group interviews with men and women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of different ages living in Sweden to develop a theory of ‘doing risk’. The doing of risk of our informants takes place within the frame of a hegemonic heteronormativity. The way that risks are perceived and done in everyday life therefore always needs to be read within a frame of prevailing structures of power. This counts for all of us as we are all part of the hegemonic power structures and thereby are both subject to the intersecting doings of risk and performatively reproducing these power structures in practice.

Everyday places, heterosexist spaces and risk in contemporary Sweden.

Abstract Subjective feelings of risk are a central feature of everyday life, and evidence shows that people who do not conform to contemporary normative notions are often more exposed to everyday risks than others. Despite this, normative notions are rarely acknowledged as risk objects. By drawing on the theory of ‘doing’ and ‘undoing’ risk, which combines intersectional and risk theory, this study contributes new perspectives on the everyday risks in contemporary society that face people who many would label as being ‘at risk’ – lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The study consists of five focus group interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of different ages in Sweden. Findings pinpoint risks and how these are done and un-done in different spheres of interviewees’ lives: the emotional risks prevailing in their private lives; the risk of discrimination at work and in relations with other institutions; and the risk of violence and harassment in public places. These risks are all related to the heteronormative order in which the mere fact of being lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender is perceived as a risk.