Joan Harvey warms to an analysis
Glynis Breakwell (2007). The Psychology of Risk Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
We amble across the road when the little man is on red, to save what? And at what risk to ourselves? At the same time, we may place more or less trust in the government, in regulators, our manager and the supermarkets to protect us from a variety of risks, most of which we hardly understand.
Risk is one of those areas that is easy for everyone to have a concept about – to think about in terms of an action.
In academic terms, there is a big wide world of risk out there, which this book has entered into. This big wide world may include risk modellers using sometimes very sophisticated mathematical tools, or all hues of social scientists, or engineers, physicists, epidemiologists, statisticians or health professionals. The list goes on. So where does the psychology of risk fit in?
Psychology important
Psychology was at one time, along with many other disciplines, not part of the ownership of risk, which was dominated by the physical sciences. Now, with the realisation that explanations for responses to risk must necessarily also come from social and behavioural sciences if we are to make any progress, the topic is one of considerable interest and debate.
Tackling such a wide area is a difficult feat, and at first I began to wonder who the book was aimed at, as the occasional word sent me to the dictionary to check up. But as I read on, I warmed to the book, and started to investigate how it might explain or enhance my understanding of some issues of particular interest. Public perception of risk was my chosen topic, and I found plenty of material to help me in this quest.
Public perception
The chapter on ‘Risk and emotion’ gave a good account of the ‘worried well’ – people who believe they are at risk of a disease when they have none of the features to suggest this, and seek medical attention, often regularly. The same chapter described ‘anticipated regret’, where people are motivated to avoid things they may regret later. Then on to risk communication, which took us into how to communicate risks to public health, with even a checklist provided.
The precautionary principle is considered in terms of whether it can exacerbate the problem even by its introduction and implied anticipatory actions. Trust, which many authors consider to be crucial in so many ways, was divided into public (trust in a general sense), institutional (such as an organization) or specific (a single organization as it deals with a specific issue at a single time).
Later, in the chapter on ‘social amplification of risk’, a long illustrative example was based on the terrorist plot to bomb aircraft in August 2006. Do you remember the televised huge delays and cancellations at Heathrow, with the army involved? The analysis here was useful to read and illustrated many of the principles outlined in this chapter, but still leaving some issues for debate in terms of how the theory works, and more especially the role of the media.
Recommended text
So back to the quest for how the book could help me to understand public perception of risk. There is plenty of material here, in at least three of the chapters. The reader might have to wander around a bit or read the whole book, but it really is interesting to read and offers some useful advice as well. It will become my recommended text for anyone interested in the psychology of risk. There are also a lot of risk professionals out there who should really read it.
I leave this review with a quote which appeals to me, as a researcher and teacher in the area of risk, and concerning the issue which combines my interest in attitudes and risk perception – that of trust. We should all remember this: ‘Trust is a fragile flower’ – difficult to create and so easy to destroy. Not a new concept, stated by many professionals, but not something that should be forgotten by anyone interested in how we perceive and respond to risk.
Dr Joan Harvey is a Chartered Psychologist at Newcastle University