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.

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 and 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 done in the United States, 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 behavior.

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.

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 sociopolitical 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.

Ulrich Beck's 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.