Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cognitive psychology and its implications
Cognitive psychology and its implications
Contemporary research into risk perception
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cognitive psychology and its implications
Introduction
Over the years, theorists have tried to articulate how and why people perceive risk differently and how risk can be managed in organisations (Sjoberg, 1979). Risk perception can be defined as the “judgments people make when asked to evaluate hazardous activities and technologies” (Slovic, 1987). Marris et al (1998) examined the risk perceptions of people in Norwich using two trenchant approaches; the psychometric paradigm and cultural theory. This report aims to critically analyse the comparison between the two theories as covered by the article, and conclusions drawn.
The psychometric paradigm
The psychometric paradigm, propounded by cognitive psychologists describes risk perception based on experts and lay people with its basis being qualitative risk characteristics (Schmidt, 2004).
Fischhoff et al. (1978) itemized the qualitative risk characteristics under two principal components being the dread risk factor and unknown risk factor. Nine qualitative risk characteristics were used to examine risk perceptions in this article, namely, dread, catastrophic potential, involuntariness, lack of knowledge to scientists, lack of knowledge to those exposed, harm to future generations, delayed effects, unfairness and severity. The theory was criticised by authors cited in the paper for not considering the social and cultural aspects of the risk.
The cultural theory
Cultural theory propounded by anthropologists and sociologists, made their assertion that the social relationships of people determine how they perceive risk, and is based on the cultural biases developed on the grid-group typology (Thomas et al, 1990). This view was also supported by Sigve et al (2004). The four cultural biases identified in the article are the ...
... middle of paper ...
...y, Risk decision and policy.
Sjoberg, L. (2003), Distal factors in risk perception. Risk Research 6, pp. 187-210.
Tansey, J, and O’Riordan, T. (1999), Cultural risk and theory; a review. Available through http://paul-hadrien.info/backup/LSE/IS%20490/utile/cultural%20theory%20and%20risk%20review.pdf google (Accessed 18 November 2013)
Thomas et al (1990), Cultural theory. Colorado: West view Press.
Thomas et al (1999), Cultural theory as Political science. Available through http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FiPQZfl1gvYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=thompson+fifth+hermit&ots=-fzAwaFbYX&sig=aH29fcldxypnbeE0fjIOTOsA_Po#v=onepage&q=thompson%20fifth%20hermit&f=false (Accessed 20 11 2013)
Walker et al (1998), Public perception of risks associated with major accident hazards.
Wildavsky, A., and Dake, K., (1990), Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Pp. 41-60.
The balance between fear and foresight is a necessary component for an individual to maintain a healthy lifestyle, an imbalance of these components can potentially put people in difficult situations as it relates to their survival. Fear can be a humbling experience when it is not balanced with foresight, the nuances of that particular experience instills a subconscious thought in an individual that resonates with fear, in terms of people realizing their mistakes and making the necessary adjustments in life.
"Culture of Fear" is a book that describes that it is our perceptions that dangers have increased, and so much the actual level of risk. Glassner explains in all of his chapters how people and organizations use our fears as a way to increase their profit. Glassner also states about the prices we pay for our panics and all the time and energy we spend worrying. Americans are afraid because of the media's broadband expose of crime, violence, drugs and diseases.
Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001
Risk is a concept with multiple meanings and is ideologically loaded. The author reviews the literature on risk perception and risk as a sociocultural construct, with particular reference to the domain of public health. Pertinent examples of the political and moral function of risk discourse in public health are given. The author concludes that risk discourse is often used to blame the victim, to displace the real reasons for ill-health upon the individual, and to express outrage at behavior deemed socially unacceptable, thereby exerting control over the body politic as well as the body corporeal. Risk discourse is redolent with the ideologies of mortality, danger, and divine retribution. Risk, as it is used in modern society, therefore cannot
Our personal beliefs influence our health behavior either positively or negatively. Health beliefs have been linked to uptake and have been measured using a number of models. For example, Bish et al. (2000) used the health belief model (HBM) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to predict uptake of a routine cervical smear test.
Environmental risks and hazards provide the world with some of the most important issue pressing obstacles. Being able to manage risks and hazards on an environmental level can save many lives and create economic benefits in the process. The Flint, Michigan water crisis is such an example of this. When the water supply of a small urban Michigan town became tainted with lead, the pressure was put on the officials in order to manage the dangers surrounding that problem. Some of the ways at which reducing the risk and hazard would be to understand them better. One way to do this is to put prejudices aside and to understand the human condition. In other words, perceiving risk appropriately and being able to take risk out of the equation in order to protect the lives of humans.
From the ancient times civilization kept evaluating, by discovering and exploring something new and, as a result, facing new hazards. Within the last few decades traditional society has moved to modern one. Within that period, huge progress towards modernity has been made and lots of innovations have been introduced to society, what have resulted in new dangers and risks. Nowadays, accurate calculation and consideration of risk-acceptance, risk-assessment and control cannot be fully complete because at any time there are unpredicted and undesired aspects of risk environments. It can be seen more clearly at the level of global dangers, such as chemical, nuclear, technological, ecological, industrial and genetic engineering hazards, which cannot
With the Social Judgement Theory; we take messages we hear and place them on an attitude scale in our mind. Our reading used the example of a man’s fear of flying and how someone might try to alleviate that fear. I personally know where this man is coming from; as I prefer not to fly unless it is necessary. This fear comes from seeing a plane crash personally and having to deal with the aftermath as a first responder. This theory goes into more detail of the message received by looking at how much does the person care and judging the message for content to decide if there should be a change or not.
Risk perception research has produced a number of methods amongst which are the Psychometric, the Basic Risk Perception Model, the Social Amplication of risk and Cultural Theory (af Walberg, 2001, p.237).However, Marris et al. (1998) classified the approaches to risk perception into two categories; the cultural theory and the psychometric paradigm approach perhaps because they are more dominant and were the basis of the research.
People make judgements based on the negative and positive feelings that they associate with a stimulus. Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson (2000) claimed that affective sensitivities play a significant role in making risk/benefit judgements. Participants evaluated situations differently when presented information either about a possible benefit or a possible risk of nuclear power plants. When information indicating high benefit was presented, they inferred low risk (positive affect) and when high risk information content was presented, low benefit was perceived (negative affect). Similarly, when information indicating low benefit was presented, they inferred high risk (negative affect) and when low risk information content was presented, high benefit was perceived (positive affect) (Finucane et al.,2000).
The stronger version of the Precautionary Principle on the other hand says that, “positive action must be taken to avoid or mitigate the potential harm; if the harm is judged unacceptable or serious and irreversible” (Beder 2006, p. 70). It also says that there is need for intervention before possible harm occurs or “before certainty about such harm can be achieved” (Beder 2006, p. 70). However, there are some critiques concerning this principle; for instance, there is ignorance and indeterminacy; where indeterminacy is when scientist fails to show the accuracy of the scientific and social assumptions on which our assessment of risk is based (Beder, 2006). There are also scientific uncertainties where scientist cannot inform policy makers the extent of pollutants in an environment and how it will have an impact on the health of people and biotic communities (Beder,
In the articles the authors define warning behaviors and place the term in the context of risk assessment and in the context of threat assessment. The authors also trace the genesis of the term warning behaviors in this article. The authors discuss types of warning behaviors with case studies that show the warning behaviors. The authors intend to accomplish all of this by looking at previous research in the field and case studies. The researchers plan to make suggestions for application of their research and recommend areas for further research.
The cultural dimension can help to identify what sort of differences may occur in each of the dimension. Knowing this is beneficial to deal with the difference across culture and try to find alternatives to solve the issue. For the purpose of this reflection, I would like to focus on the cultural dimension of Geert H. Hofstede (2001), which are power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity.
Communication is an exchange of thought, message, and information by speech, visual, signal, writing or behavior between two or more living creatures (Wikipedia, 2013). The purpose of communication is to inform, educate, or even occasionally persuade. Moreover, risk is the potential of exposure to harm, and it is triggered by irresponsibility production in the world (Rohrmann, 2008). Moreover, risks involved in the level of individual or groups encounter in the future as well as the possibility of injury and risks also involve public’ cognitive judgments of this possibility (Cox, 2006). Risk perception stems from the process of modernization of human decision-making, with a high degree of uncertainty.
These often derive from the cultural environment and are influenced by peer groups, a factor also known as group think. Consequently, ideology conveys norms and values that influence the personal risk perception. These demographic differences show the need to assess risk differently in various countries and to adapt to social differences as especially people living below the poverty line are exposed to various risk sources. Generally, people are particularly concerned about hazards with possibly “health-related or environmental impact” . From an environmental viewpoint, preventions and programmes should be especially offered in location where people are exposed to natural catastrophic. As this often concerns people living in poor domains, the development of an environmental insurance with especially low premiums like a microinsurance is worth considering. Financing research and further prevention programmes are relevant concerning health