How people think about risk
Having considered two ways of expressing risk, both individual fatality risk level and societal risk , it is worthwhile asking the question 'Do people actually think about risk in this way?' The answer, I believe, is 'no'. If you refer back to Table 4.3 'Factors relevant to the technical and cultural attitudes to risk' you will see some ways in which people conceive risks. Most people do not think in terms of probabilities, and in terms of theory. To most people, risk is more personal and based more on their own experience and/or knowledge.
Table 4.7 shows some factors that may affect peoples' perception of particular hazards.
Perceived as unimportant |
Perceived as serious |
natural familiar not memorable common chronic controlled by individual fair morally irrelevant detectable visible benefits trusted source
|
man-made exotic memorable dread catastrophic controlled by others unfair morally relevant undetectable no visible benefits un-trusted source |
Adapted from Slovic, P., Fischoff B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterising perceived risk. In Perilous Progress: Technology as Hazard, eds. R.W. Kates et al., Westview: Boulder, Colorado, p. 95.
If a hazard is characterised by a number of the factors on the right-hand side of the above table, it is likely to be perceived to be a serious problem by the public. This is not an irrational response, but a response based upon peoples' feelings and experience.
In summary, different people think about hazards in different ways, and may use different criteria for judging their seriousness. Due to the uncertainties of risk, there is no correct perception of risk, although some may be more realistic than others. We need to understand peoples' perception of risk because their perception will affect their behaviour and actions in relation to that risk. This behaviour and these actions must be taken into account in emergency management.