17.05.2015 Views

14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence

14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence

14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

equity of <strong>risk</strong> distribution, the perceived unnaturalness of<br />

the hazard, observability of the <strong>risk</strong> and so on. Box 1 shows<br />

some of the characteristics which make <strong>risk</strong>s more or less<br />

acceptable to people. As a result, a new and unfamiliar <strong>risk</strong><br />

that people feel that they have little control over, as in the<br />

driverless train in the Docklands Light Railway case study,<br />

may require special actions and communications to be in<br />

place to reassure people of safety measures. Subsequent<br />

to this early work, we also know that the way people think<br />

about and judge <strong>risk</strong>s is influenced by the way they respond<br />

to the affective resonances and feelings that it evokes, and<br />

analytic information 6, 7 .<br />

While it is tempting to view affect, or emotion, as an<br />

irrational process that only afflicts people who differ in<br />

view from us, we also know that rational decision-making<br />

requires elements of both analysis and affect. For example,<br />

without emotional commitment in decision-making we<br />

would not remain committed to important choices 8 . Benefits<br />

also matter to people, as <strong>risk</strong> is more acceptable if it holds<br />

perceived benefits that are equitably distributed, as does<br />

trust in <strong>risk</strong> managers and institutions, an issue to which we<br />

return below.<br />

The early psychometric studies provided a model for an<br />

extensive research programme and literature 3, 5, 9 . However,<br />

while the basic approach of psychometric <strong>risk</strong> perceptions<br />

research provided extensive empirical descriptions of the<br />

psychology of <strong>risk</strong> perceptions, it did not initially yield<br />

substantive theoretical progress towards explaining those<br />

beliefs, or people’s behaviour in the face of <strong>risk</strong>s.<br />

Values, Culture and the Risk Society<br />

Social and cultural factors are important to <strong>risk</strong> perception<br />

because the perceiver of <strong>risk</strong> is rarely an isolated individual,<br />

but a ‘social being’ defined through a range of relationships<br />

with others 10 , raising the question of how societal values<br />

shape <strong>risk</strong> perceptions. The best known socio-cultural<br />

approach to <strong>risk</strong>, that of Douglas and Wildavsky 11 , develops<br />

the worldview idea in conceptual terms, positing that<br />

human attitudes towards <strong>risk</strong> and danger vary systematically<br />

according to four cultural biases: individualist, fatalist,<br />

hierarchist and egalitarian.<br />

These biases are held to reflect modes of social<br />

organization, thought and value, all of which serve the<br />

Contemporary<br />

investigations of energy<br />

issues and climate<br />

change show how deeper<br />

values are bound up with<br />

our <strong>risk</strong> perceptions.<br />

US conservatives were<br />

more favourable towards<br />

environmental messages<br />

when these focused<br />

on pollution, and the<br />

‘purity’ of the natural<br />

environment, rather than<br />

arguments about a moral<br />

responsibility to avoid<br />

harm.<br />

function of defending individuals’ favoured institutional<br />

arrangements and ways of life, and in particular who to<br />

blame when those arrangements become threatened from<br />

outside 12 . Risk perception becomes central to the process<br />

of institutional defence, with cultural biases orienting<br />

people’s selection of which dangers to accept or to avoid,<br />

the fairness of distribution of <strong>risk</strong>s across society, and<br />

who to blame when things do go wrong. Cultural theory<br />

has also been valuable in stressing the neglect, within the<br />

early psychometric studies, of a concern for the political<br />

dimensions of <strong>risk</strong>, although it suffers from the fact that its<br />

categories of worldview are top-down in nature, and from<br />

difficulties in measurement 13 .<br />

More recent work on ‘cultural cognition’, however,<br />

draws on this thinking to demonstrate why certain <strong>risk</strong><br />

issues (handguns, abortion) have become deeply polarized<br />

across US society <strong>14</strong> . Contemporary investigations of energy<br />

issues 15,16 , and climate change 17 also show how deeper values<br />

are bound up with our <strong>risk</strong> perceptions. We know that<br />

individuals with political affiliations to right-leaning political<br />

parties tend to identify with less egalitarian and more<br />

individualistic values, and as a result are more likely to be<br />

sceptical about the claims of climate change scientists and<br />

<strong>risk</strong>s 18 . However, this work also suggests how some values<br />

that are widely endorsed can be incorporated as important<br />

components of narratives about <strong>risk</strong> (see case study on<br />

climate change narratives). For example, recent research<br />

with US conservatives found that they were more favourable<br />

towards environmental messages when these focused on<br />

pollution, and the ‘purity’ of the natural environment, rather<br />

than the more conventional set of arguments about a moral<br />

responsibility to avoid harm 19 .<br />

95

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!