Risk is a complex phenomenon with different, sometimes opposing bases, which leads to a whole range of possible definitions, disagreements, and contradictions. Finding a common methodological, interdisciplinary basis is complicated, above all, by the fact that in the study of risk, sometimes incompatible methods and models are used. Finding points of convergence in the greatest diversity of concepts and approaches that prevent a fruitful synthesis of theories in the practice of socio-legal research seems necessary.
The concept of risk is closely related to the concept of uncertainty and its acceptance. According to Schneier, since there is almost always uncertainty about success or failure, probability or quantification of consequences, acceptability of risk certainly means acceptance of uncertainty (2008). Risk in this interpretation is used in two senses, both as a qualitative concept reflecting unreliability and uncertainty and as a quantity with a quantitative dimension. The American economist Knight, one of the founders of risk theory, separated the concepts of “uncertainty” and “risk,” emphasizing the distinction that risk is a measurable uncertainty, the degree of which or the probability of an adverse effect can be represented quantitatively (Kasperson et al., 1988). Thus, uncertainty in this understanding implies the impossibility of measurement.
An analysis of foreign publications of the results of studies of propensity to risk has been conducted, which showed that the behavior in risky situations is different for different people and depends largely on individual characteristics. The propensity to risk depends on age, gender, and social factors (Kasperson et al., 1988). Gender differences are not so strongly pronounced and are more evident in childhood (boys are more inclined to risk), gradually erasing as they grow up. On average, the propensity for risk in men and women is the same, but there is a tendency to react in a specific way depending on the type of specific situation. Social and cultural factors can also be significant determinants of risk. For example, Western culture views the ability to take risks as socially significant and useful quality.
These two scholarly articles examine in detail the theoretical basis of the concept of risk. The key distinction of Shneier’s article is that it deals with the most general provisions related to the essence of this phenomenon. The researcher explained the approaches to the definition of the concept of risk, classification of its causes in terms of psychology and social behavior. The article “The Social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework” deals with risk in a more practical way, indicating how one can influence an individual’s attitude towards risks of various kinds. Complex correlations have been found between the propensity to risk and the characteristics of the emotional and motivational sphere. The main direction of the research on this problem was related to the study of the specificity of risky behavior as a species, that is, its stable manifestation regardless of the situation and external circumstances (Kasperson et al., 1988). According to the article, the propensity to risk is connected with the level of anxiety, features of coping strategies (coping strategies) with stress, and impulsiveness.
Another difference between the works is that Shneier does not cite problems related to the study of the concept of risk. More emphasis is placed on the relationship of this concept to different situations. The phenomenon of a shift toward greater or lesser levels of risk in a group discussion of a particular activity or situation has attracted the attention of researchers. It was found that the directions of change of individual decisions have a systematic nature, and the discussion most often increases the extremity of the decisions made (Schneier, 2008). Risk-taking tendencies are certain character traits, one of which may be the locus of control. People prone to risky behavior reduce the degree of risk in various situations, narrowly assessing risk.
In the second article, the authors describe in detail the reasons why it is necessary to deepen the study of the concept of risk. The importance of further research is related to the lack of information about the psychological profile of people who are prone or not prone to dangerous behaviors. Psychologists claim that people prone to risky behavior are more characterized by an externalizing locus of control. They possess such characteristics as conformity, emotional instability, indecisiveness, selfishness, hostility, insecurity, and irritability. Willingness to risk is directly connected with a person’s orientation on achievement of the goal or with orientation on avoidance of failure. It is these motives that are most associated with accidents.
Thus, Schneider and Kasperson have identified the main directions for studying risk in psychological research. Scientists determined the interrelation between public perception of risk and its semantic image. The influence of social, psychological, and socio-psychological factors influencing the choice of specific risky alternatives was analyzed. External and internal sources of uncertainty as one of the main components of the risk situation were studied. The already known preconditions of risky behavior were highlighted, and the existing criteria for assessing one’s own capabilities were considered. An attempt was made to come closer to understanding the nature of the risk phenomenon, which is multidimensional. The key difference between the articles is that Shneier approaches the definition of risk from a more fundamental perspective, while Kasperson and his co-authors place more emphasis on the relationship of the phenomenon to real-life situations.
References
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The Social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187.
Schneier, B. (2008). The psychology of security. Africacrypt, 5023 (1), 50–79.