Security Is as Much About Perception as Reality - Literature review Example

Security Is as Much About Perception as Reality Introduction Human security in broad sense refers to the societal principle that does embrace the violence absence devoid of all conflicts. For a successful definition of security, the society have to withhold the aspects of human rights observance, access to basic rights, equal distribution of resources and good governance. The core goal of such components is poverty reduction and steering economic growth. Essentially, it constructs to the building blocks of human interrelationships, hence peace and security transverse. United Nations Development Program also defines peace as any component whose aim is to upgrade human life. Anything whose aim is to promote the quality of life is a security enhancer. Analysis Due to the probability of different types of risks, and the countermeasures taken by diverse security organisations, it is easy to assume the reality of security as mathematical. Such factors like the area’s security and the door locking systems can equally help in calculating a neighborhood’s crime rate. For this reason, statistics may help to calculate crime acts, and insurance companies have succeeded in this approach (Focardi & Gorrieri 2001 p. 21). However, security is also a feeling based on psychological reactions based on both the risks and the countermeasures. Different people react differently in certain situations. Nevertheless, the reality and feeling of security seem closely related although they are different. This paper explores the feeling of security, its origins, and its relation with the reality of security. Some people believe that war is necessary in order to get and retain peace, while others feel that war is evil (McDowell 1998 p. 55). It is hard to conclude which believer is right. After all, what seems as right to a person depends on their belief. Another example is during a death in a family whereby one person may find it tragic, while the other uses it as an inspiration to do useful things in their lives. This approach confirms that people can shape their reality through their beliefs. Subsequently, a person’s belief structure determines his or her perception that consequently determines how he or she responds to the situation. Conclusively, everything begins from the choice made. In order to illuminate this issue, it is important to consider behavioural economics that examines human-biases like social, emotional, and cognitive behaviours and their effects on economic decisions. Reschel (2005 p. 5) argues that decision-making plays a vital role in relation to economic risk, and psychologically affects the security risks. The psychologists studying the psychology of risks have tried figuring out the effects of exaggerated risks, and the effect of downplayed risks. Neuroscience involves the psychological study of security both emotionally and intellectually. Throughout history, different brains continue developing some complex mechanisms to handle different threats. In addition, it is important to understand the brain function in order to understand critically the feeling of security. Security is more of a trade-off considering that nothing as absolute security, and that any security comes with an exchange of something including costs. Whats more, these costs include finances, time, liberties, capabilities, and convenience among others. A good example is installing a home security instead of carrying keys, or having a high-tech terrorism check instead of searching every passenger. Another good example is the 9/11 attack that took security by surprise. A study by Bullock et al. (2013 p. 25) shows that this attack saw the creation of Homeland Security, a very high power security Department. While Homeland Security Department may be very effective, it is clear that psychologically most people still feel insecure. Making trade-offs are only some of the contributing factors because human beings intuitively make some security trade-offs. Sometimes people make wrong trade-offs by exaggerating some of the risks, while reducing others. A study by Dalby (2002 p. 32) shows that some of the exaggerations with environmental security include the HIV/AIDs mostly found in the developing countries. The developed countries have a poor mentality involving people from the third world countries. These people psychologically fear that people from the third world countries fail testing for such ailments including Ebola, and as a result, they fear anybody contacts. This psychological effect is more of a perception than reality because, while the ailments are real, they do not attack everyone, and proper screening during travels helps in eliminating the spread. However, the people in the developed countries remain insecure around people from the developed countries. Some of the specific aspects of security trade-offs that may go wrong include the severity of the risk, risk probability, magnitude of costs, effectiveness of risk mitigation, and comparison between risks and costs. It is clear that the more the perception diverges from the reality, the more the perceived trade-offs fail to match the actual trade-off. As a result, if a person perceives higher risks, they tend to spend more. Exaggerated perceptions may lead to an imbalance of costs and benefits. However, in order to understand the difference between reality and perceptions in security, a simple question may help expound on the issue. Study shows that automobiles tend to kill several thousands of people annually compared to a few hundreds killed by plane accidents. Nevertheless, majority of the people still fear flying on planes preferring to use the automobiles. A good example is food poisoning that kills thousands of people annually compared to the number killed by terrorist attacks. Governments spend billions in fighting terrorism compared to the amount spent by World Food Organisations to ensure safe foods or proper drug administration. These irrational trade-offs may simply be a consequence of psychological reactions. There must be some psychological understanding in deciding to take automobiles instead of flying, or spending billions in security. Once the perception of the risk fails to match the reality of the risk, then the perception of security may not match the reality of that security. Stritzel (2014 p. 25) notes that people downplay major risks, while exaggerating dramatic but rare risks. In addition, people tend to have problems estimating the risk of anything unfamiliar to them. Other studies show that people will overestimate risks in situations that they cannot control. They will also underestimate risks for situations under their control. New risks like the current Ebola outbreak have higher risk response compared to conditions like AIDs that has existed longer. The West Nile Virus of 1999 was very alarming especially to the New Yorkers. However, the fear had abated by the summer of 2001, although the virus still existed amongst the people (Merrill 2010 p. 52). This study shows that the security risk perception changes with time affecting the reality insecurity. On the other hand, it seems that most people fear man made security risks compared to natural risks. A good example by Axelrod et al. 2009 p. 52) is the fact that most people do not fear radiation from the sun despite its long time existence. Instead, they fear radiation from the nuclear wastes, and cell phones among others. Johnson (2008 p. 60) purports that in the year, 2001 there was an Anthrax attack, which created an alert of how bioterrorism had an impact on the public health emergencies. These types of emergencies can not only spread illnesses but also cause several deaths. They can also affect government operations, which include the economic growth, creating fear, which can cause International crisis. There has been an alert on previously curbed illnesses reappearing with most of them resisting the drugs in the market. There has also been an alert on the food supplies in the market because the terrorists may use them to spread infections. The environment equally faces some insecurity with globalization. That is because science had described anthropogenic causes for the deforestation impact, the loss of biodiversity, the extinction of our animals, the pollution of the common oceans and climate warming of this planet. One major perception by environmental activists on globalization is the belief that economic growth that is not tempered would allow free trade to endanger the environment; as a result, cause pollution and the exploitation of our natural resources. Further concern from environmental activists is the environmental protection laws reducing regulatory efforts since the trend recently by governments and corporations are to allow free trade despite the effects commerce has on the environment. These security precautions base more on perception than reality. Gaan (2004 p. 6) observes that people do not fear on their chosen risks as much as they fear imposed risks. A good example is the smokers who are not afraid of their habits compared to the smoke from asbestos and other outdoor odour especially in a workplace (Kemp 2004 p. 61). Some people will equally take risks as long as they benefit from them, and a good example is the people living earthquake prone areas like Los Angeles. While everyone fears death, some people’s eating habits shows that they are not afraid of their diets compared to their fear of awful deaths like snake bites. All these examples confirm that perception plays a vital role in understanding security. Increased economic integration raises questions on globalization and the economy (Goodwin 1991 p. 72), and it is clear that globalization means important conceptual change in the manner the society looks at environment. Majority of the people view environmental problems being of global concern, and not just a national interest with a good example showing with the protection of atmospheric pollution, and sea protection (Kemp 2004 p. 62). Environmental problems are now a subject of international interests because of the cross-border concerns making environment a common heritage for humanity. Lofdahlr (2006) argues that no single nation can resolve the problems related to environment. Therefore, some governmental and non-governmental bodies like Greenpeace, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and World Watch have come up in aid of these environmental problems with multitude of treaties to harmonize governmental policies on protection of the environment. Some of these groups have also suggested a formation of World Environmental Organization that would help in the coordination of the international policies in relation to environment. The modern human society and technology like media may influence our perception. In addition, the politicians, marketers, and other influential groups may equally affect people’s perception. In corporate security, investing in businesses may raise insecurities based on perceptions and not reality. A good example shows in the investment of shares with different organisations in different companies. A good example is the 2008 credit crunch that saw people withdraws from share investments of major organisations leading to a fall in the market share. After the 9/11, the dollar value drastically dropped because people withdrew most of their investments with the United States. Currently, Greek is under some serious recess, and this has totally affected the values of the Euro. Investors will quickly withdraw in case of simple rumours due to perception and not realities of insecurities. The Shell Oil Company share value went down after the spill because of people’s perception and the reality of insecurity. The Prospect Theory experiment included two groups of people whereby one group had sure gain, and the other sure loss. In the sure gain group, alternative X had a sure gain of $500, while alternative Y had a 50% chance of gaining $1000..In the sure loss group, alternative A had a sure loss of $400, and alternative B had a 50% chance of losing $1000. These trade-offs are similar, but they differ although traditional economists argue that the difference makes no difference based on Utility Theory. The theory predicts that majority of the people base their trade-offs on direct calculation in relation to gains and losses. All these alternatives have the same expected utility of +/-$500. According to the utility theory, people chose alternatives X and Y with similar probability just as if they chose A and B with similar probability. Essentially, some people may prefer taking chances, while others prefer being sure. The difference in these probabilities of positives and negatives does not affect the mathematics, and therefore they should not affect the results. However, the results to these experiments seem to contradict the theory because when faced with a gain, majority of the people almost 84% will the sure gain of $500 compared to alternative Y. Moreover, in cases of losses, 70% of the people will prefer alternative B to alternative A. The Prospect Theory explains this situation well arguing that people have subjective values for both profits and losses. It argues that human beings seem to evolve some methods of applying such sort of trade-offs reasoning that sure gains are better than chancing for greater gains. A supporting statement is “a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush”. The human being additionally reasons that a sure loss is worse than chancing greater losses. Conclusion Security is as much about perception as reality according to the above study although perception seems to play a bigger role than reality. The study shows that any issue that the society discusses openly tends to get more popularity. For this reason, people’s perception contributes to other people’s reaction. Ramsey and Logan (2012 p. 36) argue that in the case of 9/11, the society talked about it through media and other channels instilling fear not only to the people but also to the governments. The United States created Homeland Security Department for fear of another attack. This approach meant that psychological reaction caused the reaction of the American government. Ebola is a recent case whereby people’s perception caused fear, and the Americans reacted quickly in order to protect its people. The utility and prospect theories support this principle. References AXELROD, C. W., BAYUK, J. L., & SCHUTZER, D. (2009). Enterprise information security and privacy Boston, Artech House. http://www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?bookid=32802. BULLOCK, J. A., HADDOW, G. D., & COPPOLA, D. P. (2013). Homeland security: The essentials Waltham MA: Butterworth-Heinemann DALBY, S. (2002). Environmental security. Minneapolis, Minn, University of Minnesota Press. FOCARDI, R., & GORRIERI, R. (2001). Foundations of security analysis and design: tutorial lectures. New York, Springer. GAAN, N. (2004). Environmental security: concept and dimensions. New Delhi, Kalpaz Publications. GOODWIN, C. D. (1991). Economics and national security: a history of their interaction. Durham, Duke Univ. Press. JOHNSTONE, R. W. (2008). Bioterror: Anthrax, influenza, and the future of public health security. Westport, Conn: Praeger Security International. KEMP, D. D. (2004). Exploring Environmental issues: An Integrated Approach, Routledge: London and NewYork LOFDAHL, C. L. (2002). Environmental impacts of globalization and trade: A systems study. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT Press. MCDOWELL, J. H. (1998). Meaning, knowledge, and reality. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. MERRILL RAY (2010). Introduction to Epidemiology. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 24 RAMSAY, J. D., & LOGAN, K. G. (2012). Introduction to homeland security. Boulder, Colo, Westview Press. RESCHER, N. (2005). Reason and reality: realism and idealism in pragmatic perspective. Lanham (Md.), Rowman & Littlefield. STRITZEL, H. (2014). Security in translation: securitization theory and the localization of threat. http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137307576. Read More