Risk Perception: Variable, subjective and inconsistent responses to threat, harm, peril, danger and 'risk'

Personal and collective response to seemingly obvious 'risk' is neither consistent nor guaranteed.

That is, even with the communication, open knowledge and declaration of risk over varying times and scales, routinely inadequately estimates or assures individual, community, government or organisational response to danger, threat, peril or hazards.

In other words, even when told of a risk, there are numerous modifiers and variables that influence and distort action at a singular or collective level.

"experience of a natural hazard and trust or lack of trust in authorities and experts are the primary factors that shape individual risk perception of natural hazards in often complex causal arrangements with many intervening factors.?"

(Wachinger, et al., 2013)

Risk perception remains a highly complex, variable phenomena inconsistently experienced and acted upon across cultures, communities, age, gender and experience. As a result, action in the wake or revelation of risk should never be assumed nor reasonably expected to be consistent or linear.

"a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior.?" (Wachinger, et al., 2013)

In other words, individuals and groups will not always act to save themselves or others.

"It is generally assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal protective actions. However, this depends on many contextual factors, in particular the?ability of the individual to recall past damages or, at least, to imagine the effects of a disaster.?" (Wachinger, et al., 2013)

Humans and communities do not live nor interact in neat little bubbles or totally predictable ways. This is particularly relevant when it comes to risk, hazard, threat and harm.

That is, an individuals personal ideology, education, personality, characteristics, status, gender and many other factors great an initial start point that is highly variable which only serves to compound likely actions and outcomes from that point onwards.

How individuals interact with their communities, environment and act upon transient, changing and uncertain information disperses action and expands the array of possible outcomes.

Notwithstanding, confounders and independent variables such as relevant or recent experience, motivations, trust, responsibility/accountability and ability (economic, etc) amplifies variance and could lead people or groups in many different directions.

And all this occurs in peoples thoughts, heads and minds, before action in the real world is required, which may again be distorted or influence to actually do something.

In sum, personal action in the wake or introduction of information about risk is routinely the last, most visible link in a long, complex chain of thoughts, reasoning, comprehension and rumination.

That is, how risk, threat, danger, peril and harm is perceived by a single person is highly variable, modified and often inconsistent with final, visible action.

These variances and alternate outcomes are only amplified and contributed to relative chaos when risk is perceived or required to be acted upon within groups, communities and organisations.

Therefore, models, expectations, predictions and dependency upon risk forecasts assuring people or groups will act in a particular way or sequence remain unreliable and unlikely, especially if consistent, persistent intervention is required.

Ironically, it remains a persistent and predictable risk if you think people comprehend, understand and process risk in the same, foreseeable way and will act consistently and in unison to save themselves, others and their possessions. They don't. Risk professionals know this and plan and act accordingly.

Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP MSyI M.ISRM

Security, Risk, Resilience, Safety & Management Sciences

Reference:

Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C. and Kuhlicke, C. (2013) The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards, Risk Analysis, 33(6), pp.1049-1065