2.3. Perception of Risk

So, we have to help each other to protect as our self from the threat of hazard; from the threat of risk and then we have hierarchical okay, they believe that nature can be exploited freely but there is certain rules, particular way they define there is a limit of it, okay because this limit is put because they have a very strict authority so, the authorities or the higher people those who have or the Kings or the top people they know how to do it.

In hierarchical views of risk perception, there is a belief that exploiting natural resources must follow certain rules. These rules are set by those in authority, like kings or experts, who understand how to manage these resources responsibly. Essentially, they advocate for striking a balance where nature can be used for human needs, but boundaries must be respected to prevent over-exploitation and harm to the environment.

Think of a school where there is a strict set of rules for using the playground. The principal and teachers (the authority) help students understand that while they can play freely, they cannot climb on the roof or push each other too hard. This keeps everyone safe and ensures that the playground remains a fun place for everyone.

So, they are the most vulnerable so here, we look at the attitude of 2 risk; one is individualistic, the fear risk that would limit the market and constraints their ability to trade freely.

People with a fatalistic attitude towards risk believe that there is no way to predict how nature will respond to different situations. They view risks as unavoidable and often feel powerless to manage them. This perspective can lead to a state of acceptance or resignation, where individuals might not try to prepare for or mitigate risks because they believe there is little they can do to change the outcome.

Imagine someone who has a poor driving record. Instead of taking precautions like practicing defensive driving, they may think, 'Accidents will happen no matter what.' This belief may prevent them from taking safety measures because they feel like outcomes are beyond their control.

So we are talking about this that how one see different way of looking at the risk from their cultural perspective so, it is not that risk is objective and his hazard dependent but it is more that how people are culturally when oriented.

Risk perception varies significantly based on cultural background. It's not simply about the likelihood of a negative event occurring (objective risk) but also how individuals and communities interpret and value that risk based on their beliefs, traditions, and experiences. Different groups—individualists, egalitarians, hierarchists, and fatalists—experience and react to risks based on their social norms and customs.

Consider the differences between countries when dealing with natural disasters. In some cultures, people might prepare thoroughly (like evacuating during a hurricane) based on a belief in personal responsibility (individualism). In another culture, there might be a communal approach, where the entire community comes together to build shelters (egalitarianism), reflecting their collective understanding of risk.

This idea was then little further developed by Steve Rayner, he was talking about polythetic concept of risk and that in generally, we consider risk is the probability of an adverse event and the magnitude of his consequence right, something will happen, an adverse event will happen and it has some consequences.

Steve Rayner introduces the polythetic concept of risk, suggesting that risk isn’t solely determined by the probability of an adverse event and its consequences, but is also shaped by subjective perceptions. This means that two people may assess the same risk differently based on their beliefs, experiences, and cultural context. It's a more complex and nuanced way of understanding risk.

Imagine two people hearing about a potential snowstorm. One person, who is well-prepared with snow tires and an emergency kit, might see the risk as manageable and even exciting. The other person, with less experience in snowy conditions, could view it as a severe risk, leading to anxiety or panic. Both perceptions are valid but illustrate how thoughts about risk can vary significantly.

For example, we have the game here; 3, 4 games, one is and the cricket and in the soccer and the chess and solitaire okay so, in the first part they all consider to be a game but they have very less similarities with each other.

Rayner uses game theory to explain that while many activities can be classified as 'games,' they differ significantly in their rules, objectives, and strategies. This illustrates that the concept of 'risk' can similarly encompass a wide range of experiences and interpretations, with no single characteristic defining it universally. Various forms of risk perception exist just like various types of games.

Consider various board games like Monopoly, Chess, and Candy Land. They are all games, but they have very different objectives, strategies, and ways to play. Just as players must understand the rules and strategies unique to each game, individuals must navigate the rules and cultural contexts unique to their perception of risk.

But in case of low probability okay, like radiation exposure, labels in medicine or permissible level or possible carcinogens in cancer, these kind of low probability event of risk is very unclear to the people so, what people will do the life.

Low probability risks, such as radiation exposure or the potential for carcinogens in products, can confuse people because the actual likelihood of these risks occurring is hard to grasp. As a result, individuals often struggle to evaluate these risks appropriately leading to either excessive fear or negligence regarding their safety. Awareness and understanding play a crucial role here in shaping risk perception.

Think of a person who sees a warning label about potential carcinogens in a product they use daily. Even though the risk is low, the label can create doubt and worry, leading them to question whether to use the product at all. This illustrates how low probability risks can heavily influence decision-making even when the chances of danger are minimal.

So, he is offering that for that we can have a kind of model which is called TLC; trust, liability and consent okay.

Rayner suggests that understanding risk also requires considering trust, liability, and consent (TLC). These elements influence how risks are perceived and managed. Trust relates to confidence in institutions and their management of risks, liability pertains to accountability for outcomes, and consent involves agreement on how risks should be approached. All three concepts shape public perception and acceptance of risks.

In the context of a new medical procedure, if patients trust their doctors and health authorities (trust), understand who is responsible if things go wrong (liability), and agree to the procedures after discussions (consent), they are likely to perceive the associated risks more positively and be more willing to participate.

--