Thread by @stromsjo

I'll be reading The Psychology of Risk by Breakwell. Some notes and comments might ensue in a following thread. #RiskPsychology

Risk is about constructing and evaluating potential events which might affect our assets and goals. This is not merely a technical, descriptive activity. It involves value judgments and depends on how we approach the matter. Perceptions, attitudes and beliefs become important.

One of my concerns is that #psychology gets framed in a unidirectional sense. #RiskMgmt shouldn't be reduced to structures for dealing with uninformed underlings. Often co-workers will be the ones with expertise critical for assessing risk. Communication should be bi-directional.

Having been a largely technical and descriptive domain, the risk field has evolved. We often think of risk as socially constructed with a range of factors at play from the intra-psychic individual level to the societal structural level.

Risk estimation involves a second-order probability, that an event having occurred will produce a certain outcome. Risk evaluation balances the estimated risk against gains.

Risk assessment relies on methods from experimentation and simulation to databases and expert opinions.

Event trees define elements, relate them and quantify properties. Determining probability distributions is the hardest part.

For transparency, Risk assessment should involve a statement of #uncertainty.

As low as reasonably practical - ALARP - is a common but vague principle.

#Uncertainty is aleatory (statistic) or epistemic (about what could in principle be known).

Psychometric paradigm: plotting hazards according to clusters of factors, e.g. "dread", "familiarity".

Risk acceptability is related to the perceived benefit to be derived from a hazard.

Voluntary risks tend to be more acceptable, even when benefits are limited. "I'm in control."

Willingness to pay (for risk reduction, or for compensation) is a way to rank risks.

#Synergistic risk - when hazards combine to produce higher risk (e.g. radon and smoking).

Why do people judge the same technology differently? When using aggregate data, we miss individual differences. Core dimensions seem to be: Are unobservable hazards perceived as #unknowable? To what extent are a) old hazards unknowable? b) unobservable and old hazards #dreadrisk?

#RiskTaking is related to "Big Five" personality traits:

extraversion
agreeableness
conscientiousness
emotional stability
openness to experience

Risk estimates don't predict willingness to take risk. Venturesomeness - perceiving involuntary risks as being familiar or delayed.

For difficult problems, those low in #efficacy (with external locus of control) focus on difficulties, not on solutions. The relation between self-efficacy and risk-taking is complicated. If risk is voluntary, depends on the desirability. If imposed, motivates mitigating action.

In a society, habitual hazard experience reduces risk perception. Recent experience enhances.

For an individual, greater experience can lead to desensitisation for voluntary hazards.

Paradox: high risk perception assumed to lead to preparedness/mitigation. Not necessarily true.

New Age beliefs in a higher consciousness and denial of analytical knowledge affects rating of tech hazards.

Trust in experts and regulators: Trustworthiness of information about a hazard differs.

Convenience samples and flaky methods cast doubt over studies on #RiskPerception.

Gender and race seem to predict risk perception. Is there a While Male Effect or are differences due to social inequality? Those affluent and well-educated tend to feel less vulnerable.

Differences in how we perceive risk should be considered when educating about risk. But how?

Scientists, policy-makers and the lay public employ different forms of rationality about hazards:

☑️ legitimate evidence
☑️ readily available evidence
☑️ popular sources and "common sense"

Experts differ from the lay public. Experts also tend to be white and well-educated.

#CulturalTheory suggests that people choose what hazards to fear to defend their way of life (or culture). Dimensions are "group" (the extent to which they are part of bounded groups) and "grid" (the extent to which their social interactions are rule-based or negotiated).

#CulturalTheory suggests four types:
• hierarchists
• sectarians/egalitarians
• fatalists
• individualists

Breakwell concludes that vulnerability does not in itself explain differences in risk perception, but remains an ingredient in the mental model of an acceptable hazard.

How do people make decisions with incomplete or contradictory info?

Heuristics:
• representativeness: A resembles B so probably same type
• availability: perceived probability increases if we recall similar event
• anchoring: when quantifying, we start with an initial guess

Optimistic bias: More likely to experience positive events than others (neg. events less likely). Shown to occur on behalf of one's children.

Motivational sources:
• defensive denial
• self-esteem
Cognitive sources:
• egocentrism
• availability of info
• stereotype salience

Optimistic bias occurs for risks seen to be under control. Seems to disappear when people know their judgments could be verified.

Hindsight bias - foresight efter the event. Possible explanation: previous judgment gets reconstructed with new knowledge. Document risk assessments!

Prospect Theory - we make decisions based on the potential value of gains and losses rather than expected utility.

Frame of reference: information can be seen in positive or negative light (10 people saved or 30 dead).

Subjective values: losses hurt more than gains feel good.

Framing risk issues - dimensions of inter-group conflict:
• science and economics vs. fairness and equity
• relevance for a particular at-risk population ("utsatta områden")
• focus on gains vs. losses

Explicit framing tends to reduce conflict.