Factors That Determine Attitude and Probability of Risk - Essay Example

Risk Management Research paper consists of the introduction, main body and conclusion. Introductory passage involves in the subject of the assignment, and provides the information about risk management, factors that determine attitude and probability of risk and the definition of risk and hazard together with the difference between these terms. Cyclists (push bike riders) are under investigation of risk management in this paper. A clear explanation of risk perception and points that influence people’s attitude is presented. The point is that some people consider cycling as a dangerous affair with a high possibility of risk, while others regard cycling as a safe kind of sport. Information about risk communication, and how it helps in the dimension of psychological understanding of risk is included to the paper. The problem of different risk regarding in cycling by different people is raised in the paper. The last section includes concluding response to this problem. The method used is particularized examination of the literature together with the critical summarizing and personal inferences on the topic. Keywords: risk management, perception, cycling, risk communication. It is a widely known fact that every day people engage in some situations that are more or less predetermined risk possibility (Adams, 1995). It depends from person’s occupation, way of life, social environment and many other factors. Still, a big importance hides in person’s perception and understanding of risk. Moreover, relation to risk situations and appropriate communication stay the ground for the risk management. If to talk about the definition of risk in the field of science, we may observe different investigations concerning this term. Rosa (2003) argues that risk is “a situation or event where something of human value (including humans themselves) is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain”. In other words it is the potential to lose something valuable for the peculiar person. Hazard comes close to the risk theories and this term is defined as some condition with the potential to induce deplorable implications in the risk situations (HSA, 2014). The problem under investigation is the cyclists (push bike riders) and probability of risk in concern to this occupation. The statistic data demonstrates that cycling is rather save occupation in relation to other kind of sports and bicycle is determined as not dangerous vehicle for transporting people. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Centre (2012) stays the data that “in 2012, 726 lost their lives in bicycle/motor vehicle crashes, just under two people every day of the year in the U.S.” That number is considered to be big, still in the relation to other road accidents bicycle is regarded as a secure transport. Still, there are other different perceptions of possible risk in cycling, and they depend on huge number of various factors that are presupposed by the people’s nature, environment, treatment and culture. Risk perception is considered to be a fully subjunctive notion that depends from people’s psychological peculiarities and natural environment (Weinstein, 1980). Moreover, this category concerns the individuality and constructs on values, history, symbols and ideology of a particular person (Weinstein, 1980). It is clear that some people will see nothing dangerous in cycling as it seem to them easy and funny, while others may be afraid of that sport and thinks that it is unbelievably hard. For example, rich capricious young lady who used to drive a high-class car will not regard bicycle as a safe transport, at the same time bold girl that is always has some adventures will see cycling as a nice affair. Pidgeon (1992) represent the definition of risk perception as “people’s beliefs, attitudes, judgments and feelings, as well as the wider social or cultural values and dispositions that people adopt, towards hazards and their benefits”. Such understanding of risk perception show that people’s outlook predetermines their perception of this or that particular risk. Advanced scientists represent some ideas that explain the way in which people are apprehended the risk situations in their life (Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1979, 2002). For instance, mother will show her concern about the child that firstly rides a bicycle, while her brave son will try to gain his aim, and will not see any risk in new bicycle he always dreams of. First and foremost, we should talk about cognitive limitations. The matter is that the percentage of feeling danger is less than people are informed with some specific details of the risk. Incertitude evokes the feeling of fear, and risk perception escalates more and more (Rowe & Wright, 2001). The second point is imaginability and memorability (Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1979, 2002). This means that people usually are more afraid of things that they easily can imagine or have some unpleasant memories with. Therefore, we may say that a person who experienced some accident with bike in the childhood, for example, and constantly connect unpleasant emotions with that proceeding will probably not try to ride a bicycle in adult life. The matter is that unpleasant memories will bring him/her to that very moment of their fall and such person will better avoid bike riding and regard this occupation as a risk one. The next point is qualitative versus quantitative factors (Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1979, 2002). This point is important in the dimension of information conversance. Numbers are highly influence people’s mind and statistic data impacts their attitude to the particular risk situations. For instance, statistic for the 2012 year concerning accidents with bicycles that is mentioned before, stays somehow frightening numbers for us, and many people may review their attitude to cycling after regarding this information. And the last point is disagreement about risk (Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein 1979, 2002). This factor stays the idea that people believe that they know much more about risk than they actually do. Someone’s believes and ideological notions lead them to such conclusions (Martin and Wogalter, 1989). People may judge something than they never try it or even misinformed about some facts. That is why person may overestimate or underestimate a percentage of risk in accordance to particular situations. Individual sometimes should cope with particular risk situations that are happened in their lives. Risk communication is an appropriate help in fearful situations that we cannot avoid. That is considered to be a process that assists in hard moments as it is naturally laid that humans need to communicate with each other, especially when important and not easy moments come. Covello (1992) defines risk communication as “a process of exchanging information among interested parties about the nature, magnitude, significance or control of a risk”. What is more, organized and centralized risk communication lead to reduction of hazards (Palenchar, 2008). Dr. Peter M. Sandman, (2014) intends to categorize risk communication strategies into four stages. This division is based on the notions of hazard and outrage, in other words Sandman (2014) represents the stages according to the level of harm from risk and people’s disappointment as a result. The first stage is “precaution advocacy” (Sandman, 2014) and it has a right to exist when “hazard is high and outrage is low”. In the language it may appears as “Watch out!” When hazard is low and outrage is high the stage is called “outrage management” (Sandman, 2014), and people used to say “Calm down.” in such situations. “Crisis communication” takes place when hazard is high and outrage is also high. Sandman (2014) argues that people react in this as “We’ll get through this together.” The last idea is called “sweet spot” and it occurs when hazard and outrage are both intermediate (Sandman, 2014). The dialogue with sincere concern is important, but people may say “And what do you think?” It should be mentioned that precaution advocacy and outrage management pertain to risk communication connected with cycling best of all. All in all, we should say that cycling may bear some risk as this kind of sport and way of transportation involve some danger. Still, the feeling of risk closely connected with risk perception that is remained to be fully subjective notion. We find out that a big number of factors provide the understanding of risk and attitude to it. Social, psychological, cultural and natural are of the big importance. Risk communication strategies are developed to provide a helping hand to people that exposed to risk. Different level of hazard and outrage determine the peculiarities of these strategies, and approach that is needed in order to communicate with person under risk situation. Adams, J (1995). Risk. London: UCL Press. Covello, V. T. (1992). Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 15 (pp. 359-373). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hazard and Risk. Health and Safety Authoriry. (2014). Retrieved From: http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Hazards/ Martin, E.G., and Wogalter, M.S. (1989). Risk perception and precautionary intent for common consumer products. Proceeding of the Human Factors Society 3rd Annual Meeting: 24-32. Palenchar, M. J. (2008). Risk communication and community right to know: A public relations obligation to inform. Public Relations Journal, 2(1), 1-26. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Statistics. (2014). the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center within the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Retrieved From: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm Pidgeon, N. (1992). Risk Perception in Risk Analysis, Perception and Management, Report of a Royal Society Study Group, London 89. Sandman, P.M. (2014). Introduction to Risk Communication. Retrieved From: http://www.psandman.com/index-intro.htm Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21(3). Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality? Risk Analysis, 21. Rosa, E. A. ( 2003). The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework (SARF): Metatheoretical foundation and policy implications. In N. K. Pidgeon, R.E.and Slovic, P (Ed.), The social amplification of risk. (pp. 47-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 39(5). Read More