Clicca qui per scaricare

Meaning and risk. The role of subjective cultures in the evaluation of hazardous behaviours
Autori/Curatori: Claudia Venuleo, Piergiorgio Mossi, Tiziana Marinaci 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2017 Fascicolo: Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  28 P. 48-75 Dimensione file:  266 KB
DOI:  10.3280/PDS2017-001003
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 

A number of studies show how different social groups express heterogeneous evaluations about the meaning of "risk" and the nature of the acceptable conducts. From a cultural perspective, the current study tests the hypothesis that subjective cultures in terms of which people interpret their role and their social environment affect the magnitude of the risk perceived related to different kinds of behaviours: substance (alcohol, hard drugs, marijuana or nicotine) consumption, internet use and gambling. The study involved 198 bachelor degree students from South-East Italy. Respondents were asked to assess the risk related to each of the target behaviours, in three domains: health, relationships and social approval/stigma. Principal Components Analyses allowed to identify two factorial dimensions for each domain: as regards the health, respondents express different evaluations of the risk related to substance use or specific behaviours; as regard the relationships, the differentiation concerns socialized and not socialized behaviours; as regards social approval, the differentiation concerns licit and illicit behaviours. The questionnaire on the Interpretation of the Social Environment (Mossi and Salvatore, 2011) was used to detect the subjective cultures. The Analysis of Multiple Correspondence allowed to identify the two principal dimensions of sense which organize them. Finally, Kendall correlations were applied to analyse the linkage between the components of risk rating and the components of subjective cultures. The results provide support for the idea that cultural differences in the way of evaluating the social environment are related to a different evaluation of the risk related to different kind of hazardous behaviours. The Implications for strategies of intervention will be discussed.

Diversi studi evidenziano come gruppi sociali differenti esprimano valutazioni eterogenee su cosa sia rischio e su quale sia la natura dei comportamenti accettabili. Inscrivendosi entro una prospettiva culturale, il presente studio verifica l’ipotesi che le culture soggettive con cui le persone interpretano il proprio ruolo e il proprio ambiente sociale impattano la grandezza del rischio percepito in relazione a differenti comportamenti: consumo di sostanze (alcol, droghe pesanti, marjuana o nicotina), uso di internet e gioco d’azzardo. Lo studio ha coinvolto 198 studenti universitari del sud-est di Italia. Ai rispondenti è stato chiesto di valutare il rischio connesso a ciascun comportamento target, in tre domini: salute, relazioni e approvazione/stigma sociale. L’Analisi in Componenti Principali ha consentito di identificare due dimensioni fattoriali per ciascun dominio: sul piano della salute, i rispondenti esprimono differenti valutazioni del rischio associato al consumo di sostanze o a determinati comportamenti; sul piano delle relazioni, le differen¬ziazioni concernono i comportamenti socializzati e non socializzati; sul piano dell’approvazione sociale, i comportamenti leciti o illeciti. Il questionario sull’Interpretazione dell’Ambiente Sociale (Mossi e Salvatore, 2011) è stato somministrato per rilevare le culture soggettive. L’Analisi delle Corrispondenze Multiple ha consentito di identificare le due principali dimensioni di senso che le caratterizzano. Infine, correlazioni di Kendall sono state usate per analizzare il rapporto tra le componenti di valutazione del rischio e le componenti delle culture soggettive. I risultati sostengono l’idea che differenze culturali nel modo di valutare l’ambiente sociale corrispondono a differenti valutazioni del rischio associato a differenti tipologie di comportamento. Saranno discusse le implicazioni per le strategie di intervento.
Keywords: Culture soggettive, ambiente sociale, valutazione del rischio, comportamenti a rischio

  1. Abbott M.W. and Volberg R.A. (2006). The measurement of adult problem and pathological gambling. International Gambling Studies, 6 (2), 175-200., 10.1080/1445979060092867DOI: 10.1080/1445979060092867
  2. Ajzen I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (50): 179-211., 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TDOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  3. Beck U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
  4. Bejarano B., Ahumada G., Sánchez G., Cadenas N., de Marco M., Hynes M. and Cumsille F. (2011). Perception of risk and drug use: An exploratory analysis of explanatory factors in six Latin American countries. The Journal of International Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco Research, 1(1): 9-17.
  5. Benzécri J.P. (1979). Sur le calcul des taux d’inertie dans l’analyse d’un questionnaire, addendum et erratum à [BIN. MULT.]. Cahiers de l’Analyse des Données, 4(3): 377-378.
  6. Boholm A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. Journal of Risk Research, 1(2): 135-163., 10.1080/13669879837723DOI: 10.1080/13669879837723
  7. Botvin G.J., Botvin E.M. and Ruchlin H. (1998). School-based approaches to drug abuse prevention: Evidence for effectiveness and suggestions for determining cost-effectiveness. Cost-Benefit/Cost-Effectiveness Research of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implications for Programming and Policy. NIDA Research Monograph, (176), 59-82.
  8. Boverie P.E., Scheuffele D.J. and Raymond E.L. (1994). Multimethodological approach to examining risk-taking. Current Psychology, 13(4), 289-302., 10.1007/BF0268688DOI: 10.1007/BF0268688
  9. Bryant F.B. and Yarnold P.R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grimm L.G. and Yarnold P.R. (eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, pp. 99-136.
  10. Buchanan D.R. (1991). How teens think about drugs: insights from moral reasoning and social bonding theory. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 11(4): 315-332., 10.2190/96KY-N9QA-CH61-66EDOI: 10.2190/96KY-N9QA-CH61-66E
  11. Byrnes J.P., Miller D.C. and Schafer W.D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3): 367-383., 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.36DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.36
  12. Campbell A.J., Cumming S.R. and Hughes I. (2006). Internet use by the socially fearful: Addiction or therapy?. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 9(1): 69-81.
  13. Canale N., Vieno A., ter Bogt T., Pastore M., Siciliano V. and Molinaro S. (2016). Adolescent Gambling-Oriented Attitudes Mediate the Relationship Between Perceived Parental Knowledge and Adolescent Gambling: Implications for Prevention. Prevention Science, 1-11.
  14. Carli R. and Salvatore S. (2001). L’Immagine della Psicologia [The Image of Psychology]. Roma: Kappa.
  15. Chen, Y.F. and Peng, S.S. (2008). University students’ Internet use and its relationships with academic performance, interpersonal relationships, psychosocial adjustment, and self-evaluation. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 11(4), 467-469.
  16. Cicognani E. (2004). Comportamenti a rischio in adolescenza e contesti relazionali: famiglia, gruppo dei pari e comunità [Riskbehaviors in adolescence and relationalcontexts: family, peergroup and community]. Psicologia della Salute, 3: 9-22., 10.1400/6409DOI: 10.1400/6409
  17. Cohn S. (2016). Reconceptualising public acceptability: A study of the ways people respond to policies aimed to reduce alcohol consumption. Health, 20(3): 203-219., 10.1177/136345931557411DOI: 10.1177/136345931557411
  18. Coltman T., Devinney T.M., Midgley D.F. and Venaik S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250-1262.
  19. Cox R.B., Burr B., Blow A.J. and Parra Cardona J.R. (2011). Latino adolescent substance use in the United States: using the bioecodevelopmental model as an organizing framework for research and practice. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3(2): 96-123.
  20. Eckel C.C. and Grossman, P.J. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1: 1061-1073.
  21. Fishbein M. and Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley.
  22. Freedman K.S., Nelson N.M. and Feldman L.L. (2011). Smoking initiation among young adults in the United States and Canada, 1998-2010: a systematic review. Preventing Chronic Disease, 9: 110037.
  23. Fukuyama F. (1999). The Great Disruption. New York: The Free Press.
  24. Geertz C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
  25. Geckova A., van Dijk J.P., Groothoff J.W. and Post D. (2002). Socio-economic differences in health risk behaviour and attitudes towards health risk behaviour among Slovak adolescents. Sozial-und Präventivmedizin, 47(4): 233-239.
  26. Gilman S.E., Abrams D.B. and Buka S.L. (2003). Socioeconomic status over the life course and stages of cigarette use: Initiation, regular use, and cessation. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-), 57(10): 802-808.
  27. Gottfredson G.D. and Gottfredson D.C. (2001). What schools do to prevent problem behavior and promote safe environments. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(4): 313-344., 10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1204_0DOI: 10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1204_0
  28. Grisby T.J., Forster M. and Sussman S. (2015). A Perspective on Cigarette Smoking During Alcohol and Substance Use Treatment. Substance Use and Misuse, 50(8-9): 1-6., 10.3109/10826084.2015.100775DOI: 10.3109/10826084.2015.100775
  29. Guidi M. and Salvatore S. (2013). Parents’ Images of their Children’s School System. In: Marsico P., Komatsu K. and Iannaccone A. (eds.), Crossing Boundaries. Intercontextual Dynamics Between Family and School. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publication, pp. 271-300.
  30. Harris C.R., Jenkins M. and Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1): 48-63.
  31. Henwood K., Pidgeon N., Sarre S., Simmons P. and Smith N. (2008). Risk, framing and everyday life: Epistemological and methodological reflections from three socio-cultural projects. Health, risk and society, 10(5): 421-438., 10.1080/1369857080238145DOI: 10.1080/1369857080238145
  32. Hibell B., Guttormsson U., Ahlström S., Balakireva O., Bjarnason T., Kokkevi A. and Kraus L. (2012). The 2011 ESPAD report. Substance use among students in 36 European Countries. Stocklom: CAN.
  33. Hofstede G.H. and Hofstede G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. (2nd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA., 10.1177/03128962020270010DOI: 10.1177/03128962020270010
  34. Johnston L.D., O’malley P.M., Bachman J.G. and Schulenberg J.E. (2011). Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2010. Volume II, College Students & Adults Ages. Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, pp. 19-50.
  35. Johnston L. and O’Malley, P. (1985). Issues of validity and population coverage in student surveys of drug use. In: Rouse B., Kozel N. and Richards L. (eds.), Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. Washington, USA: National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph, 57: 31-54.
  36. Jolliffe I.T. (2002). Principal components analysis (2nd ed). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  37. Jones T. (2008). The dark heart of Italy. London: Faber and Faber.
  38. Karim R. and Chaudhri P. (2012). Behavioral addictions: An overview. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44(1): 5-17., 10.1080/02791072.2012.66285DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2012.66285
  39. Karlsson P. (2006). Margins of prevention: On older adolescents’ positive and negative beliefs about illicit drug use. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
  40. Kasperson J.X., Kasperson R.E., Pidgeon N. and Slovic P. (2003). The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In: Pidgeon N., Kasperson R.E. and Slovic P. (eds.), The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-46.
  41. Katainen A., Lehto A.S. and Maunu A. (2015). Adolescents’ sense-making of alcohol-related risks: The role of drinking situations and social settings. Health, 19(5): 542-558., 10.1177/136345931455796DOI: 10.1177/136345931455796
  42. Kim Y.M. and Neff J.A. (2010). Direct and indirect effects of parental influence upon adolescent alcohol use: A structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 19(3): 244-260. 10.1080/1067828X.2010.488963
  43. Klein M. (1967). Contribution to psychoanalysis, 1921-1945. New York: Mac Graw-Hill.
  44. Koski-Jännes A., Hirschovits-Gerz T., Pennonen M. and Nyyssönen M. (2012). Population, professional and client views on the dangerousness of addictions: testing the familiarity hypothesis. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 29(2): 139-154.
  45. Kropp F., Lavack A.M., Silvera D.H., and Gabler J.R. (2004). Alcohol consumption among university students: a multi-country study of attitudes, values, identity, and consumer influence. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 12(2): 1-28.
  46. Landaeur T., Foltz P.W. and Laham D. (1998). An Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse processes 25(2/3): 259-284., 10.1080/0163853980954502DOI: 10.1080/0163853980954502
  47. Lebart L., Morineau A. and Warwick K. (1984). Multivariate Descriptive Statistical Analysis Correspondence Analysis and Related Techniques for Large Matrices. New York: Wiley.
  48. Mannarini T., Ciavolino E., Nitti M. and Salvatore S. (2012). The role of affects in culture based interventions: Implications for practice. Psychology, 3(8): 569-577.
  49. Manton E., Pennay A. and Savic M. (2014). Public drinking, social connection and social capital: A qualitative study. Addiction Research and Theory, 22(3): 218-228., 10.3109/16066359.2013.81220DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2013.81220
  50. Margherita G., Gargiulo A. and Martino M.L. (2015). Dream narration in healthy and at-risk pregnancy. Dreaming, 25(2): 88-102.
  51. Marín G. (1996). Expectancies for drinking and excessive drinking among Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic Whites. Addictive Behaviors, 21(4): 491-507., 10.1016/0306-4603(96)85558-DOI: 10.1016/0306-4603(96)85558-
  52. Markova I. (2003). Understanding Themata and Generating Social Representations. In: Dialogicality and Social Representations. The Dynamics of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 77–241.
  53. Millstein S. and Halpern-Felsher B. (2002). Perceptions of risk and vulnerability. Journal of Adolescent Health (31): 10-27., 10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00412-3DOI: 10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00412-3
  54. Moran S., Wechsler H. and Rigotti N.A. (2004). Social smoking among US college students. Pediatrics, 114(4): 1028-1034. PMID: 15466101
  55. Mossi P., Calcagnì A. and Marinaci T. (2011). A cultural approach to work-related stress. Rivista di Psicologia Clinica, 1 (online journal). -- Retrieved from:
  56. Mossi P. and Salvatore S. (2011). Transición psicológica de significado a sentido [Psychological transition: from meaning to sense]. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 4(2): 153-169.
  57. Ng M., Freeman M.K., Fleming T.D., Robinson M., Dwyer-Lindgren L., Thomson B., Wollum A., Sanman E., Wulf S., Lopez A.D., Murray C.G. L. and Gakidou E. (2014). Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, 1980-2012. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 311(2): 183-92.
  58. Nowak D.E. and Aloe A.M. (2014). The prevalence of pathological gambling among college students: A meta-analytic synthesis, 2005-2013. Journal of Gambling Studies, 30(4): 819-843.
  59. Orford J. and McCartney J. (1990). Is excessive gambling seen as a form of dependence? Evidence from the community and the clinic. Journal of Gambling Studies, 6: 139-152., 10.1007/BF0101349DOI: 10.1007/BF0101349
  60. Osgood C.E., Suci G.J., and Tannenbaum T.H. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.
  61. Pilkington H. (2007). In: good company: Risk, security and choice in young people’s drug decisions. The Sociological Review, 55(2): 373-392.
  62. Rai A.A., Stanton B., Wu Y., Li X., Galbraith J., Cottrell L. and Burns J. (2003). Relative influences of perceived parental monitoring and perceived peer involvement on adolescent risk behaviors: An analysis of six cross-sectional data sets. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(2): 108-118., 10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00179-DOI: 10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00179-
  63. Renn O. (2008). Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.
  64. Rosenstock I. (1974). The health belief model and preventive behavior. Health Education Monographs, 2: 354-38., 10.1177/10901981740020040DOI: 10.1177/10901981740020040
  65. Rundall T.G. and Bruvold W.H. (1988). A meta-analysis of school-based smoking and alcohol use prevention programs. Health Education and Behavior, 15(3): 317-334., 10.1177/10901981880150030DOI: 10.1177/10901981880150030
  66. Salvatore S. and Venuleo C. (2009). The unconscious as source of sense: A psychodynamic approach to meaning making. In: Wagoner B. (ed.), Symbolic Transformations: The mind in movement through culture and society. Routledge: Cultural Dynamics of Social Representation Series, pp. 59-74.
  67. Salvatore S. and Venuleo C. (2013). The field dynamic nature of sensemaking. Theoretical and methodological implications. Papers on Social Representations. Special Issue “Semiotics and Social Representations: a mutual cultivation”, 22: 1-21, 41 (online journal). --Retrieved from:
  68. Schwartz S.J., Weisskirch R.S., Zamboanga B.L., Castillo L.G., Ham L.S., Huynh Q.L. and Davis M.J. (2011). Dimensions of acculturation: associations with health risk behaviors among college students from immigrant families. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1): 27-41.
  69. Shoveller J.A. and Johnson J.L. (2006). Risky groups, risky behaviour, and risky persons: Dominating discourses on youth sexual health. Critical Public Health, 16(1): 47-60., 10.1080/0958159060068062DOI: 10.1080/0958159060068062
  70. Slovic P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4): 689-701.
  71. Slovic P., Peters E., Finucane M.L. and MacGregor D.G. (2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health psychology, 24(4S), S35., 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S3DOI: 10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S3
  72. Song A.V., Morrell H.E., Cornell J.L., Ramos M.E., Biehl M., Kropp R.Y. and Halpern-Felsher B.L. (2009). Perceptions of smoking-related risks and benefits as predictors of adolescent smoking initiation. American Journal of Public Health, 99(3): 487-492., 10.2105/AJPH.2008.13767DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.13767
  73. Spigner C., Hawkins W. E. and Loren W. (1993). Gender differences in perception of risk associated with alcohol and drug use among college students. Women & Health, 20(1): 87-97.
  74. Tesh S.N. (1988). Hidden Arguments. Political Ideology and Disease Prevention Policy. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
  75. Triandis H.C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.
  76. Tsitsika A., Tzavela E., Mavromati F. and EU NET ADB Consortium. (2012). Research on Internet Addicitive Behaviours among European Adolescents (EU NET ADB Proyect). Athens: National and Kapodestrian University of Athens.
  77. Valsiner J. (2007). Personal Culture and Conduct of Value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 1(2): 59-65.
  78. Valsiner J. (ed.) (2012). The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology. Oxford University Press.
  79. Van Oers J.A.M., Bongers I.M.B., Van de Goor L.A.M. and Garretsen H.F.L. (1999). Alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, problem drinking, and socioeconomic status. Alcohol and Alcoholism 34(1): 78-88.
  80. Venuleo C. (2013). I modelli di valutazione di un servizio URP espressi dall’utenza di un’Azienda Sanitaria Locale. Un caso studio (The users’ models of evaluating one National Health Service Public-Relations Department. A case study). Psicologia della Salute, 3: 29-49., 10.3280/PDS2013-00300DOI: 10.3280/PDS2013-00300
  81. Venuleo C., Calogiuri S. and Rollo S. (2015). Unplanned reaction or something else? The role of subjective cultures in hazardous and harmful drinking. Social Science and Medicine, 139: 9-17.
  82. Venuleo C., Salvatore S. and Mossi P. (2015). The role of cultural factors in differentiating pathological gamblers of a southern region of Italy. Journal of Gambling Studies, 3(4): 1353-1376.
  83. Venuleo C., Mossi P. and Salvatore S. (2016). Educational subculture and dropping out in higher education: a longitudinal case study. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2): 321-342., 10.1080/03075079.2014.92784DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.92784
  84. Venuleo C., Rollo S., Marinaci T. and Calogiuri S. (2016). Towards a cultural understanding of addictive behaviours. The image of the social environment among problem gamblers, drinkers, internet users and smokers. Addiction Research and Theory, Published online 13 March 2016: 1-14., 10.3109/16066359.2015.112625DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2015.112625
  85. Wildavsky A. and Dake K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4): 41-60.
  86. Yen J.Y., Yen C.F., Chen C.C., Chen S.H. and Ko C.H. (2007). Family factors of internet addiction and substance use experience in Taiwanese adolescents. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(3): 323-329.

  1. Claudia Venuleo, Gianna Mangeli, Piergiorgio Mossi, Antonio F. Amico, Mauro Cozzolino, Alessandro Distante, Gianfranco Ignone, Giulia Savarese, Sergio Salvatore, The Cardiac Rehabilitation Psychodynamic Group Intervention (CR-PGI): An Explorative Study in Frontiers in Psychology 976/2018 pp. , DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00976

Claudia Venuleo, Piergiorgio Mossi, Tiziana Marinaci, Significato e rischio. Il ruolo delle culture soggettive nella valutazione dei comportamenti a rischio in "PSICOLOGIA DELLA SALUTE" 1/2017, pp. 48-75, DOI:10.3280/PDS2017-001003


FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche