Risk Perception

Although risks have been elements of human life since time immemorial, the diversity and complexity of modern reality make individuals more exposed to risks, in both private and professional life. At the organizational level, various networks of both national and international character shape the company's performance, and it is, consequently, the task of both managers and workers to perceive risks and respond to them.

Risk perception is understood as the process of observing, recognizing, and understanding something or somebody that may cause harm, loss, or danger. Risk perception is characterized by people's judgments as well as how individuals describe and estimate hazards and dangers. Thus, risk perception in public relations involves the risk apprehension and estimation by various stakeholders, at the internal and external level of organizations as well as the examination of similarities, differences, and even contradictions in the way diversified stakeholders perceive the same risks.

Taking into account the methodology of risk perception, various theories explain underlying risk apprehension and estimation. One way of discussing risk perception is to divide current theories into the following categories: classical decision analysis, psychological decision theory, social-psychological judgment and attitude theory, sociological systems theory, and policy analysis. Classical decision analysis deals with the rational reasons of making choices. Psychological decision theory (together with social judgment theory) focuses on the individual processing of ideas, taking into account the social perception of rationality and motivational factors. Social-psychological research concentrates on the relation between the social value system and one's personal attitudes and choices. In sociological studies researchers concentrate on group attitude to risks, taking into account social values, power relations, and group opinions.

Another approach in the studies on risk perception is the fuzzy-trace theory that specifies that any meaningful inputs are assumed to be encoded into memory in two forms: a verbatim representation that is objective and reflects the real situation and a gist representation that is derived from the subjective interpretation of the current state. The gist representation depends on various cultural factors, such as one's identity, gender, social role, life experience, and genetic aspects.

In consequence, the same information can be perceived differently by two people, depending on their attitude toward risk since risk perception depends on various individual and group characteristics. Taking into account the societal dimension of risk perception, certain zones of meaning can be traced in the communities since group members vary in terms of risk knowledge, attitudes to risk, and interest in information on risks. There is also a difference in risk perception of laymen and professionals. Although lay people may have limited information on hazards, their [Page 808]conceptualization may be richer since they take the variety of factors into account, as well as the ones omitted in expert opinions. Taking the cognitive sphere of apprehension and estimation into account, risk perception is determined by several factors such as the suspected losses, disaster potential, and risk circumstances.

Risk perception can be also studied through the risk perception model by Vincent T. Covello (2010). The following factors determining risk perception can be exemplified: trust, voluntariness, controllability, familiarity, fairness, benefits, catastrophic potential, understanding, uncertainty, delayed effects, effects on children, effects on future generation, victim identity, dread, media attention, accident history, reversibility, personal stake, ethical and moral nature, and human versus natural origin. Risk perception can be also researched by taking into account the four semantic images of risk in public perception by Ortwin Renn. The first one, called pending danger, encompasses artificial risks that have large catastrophic potential but their randomness is perceived as a threat. The second one encompasses slow agents that concern artificial ingredients in food, water, or air and have delayed and noncatastrophic results, with high tendency to blame the responsible entity. Cost-benefit ratio, on the other hand, concerns money-related advantages and disadvantages directed at the variance of distribution and discrepancies between risks and gains as well as probabilistic thinking. The fourth element, avocational thrill, concerns individual's control over the influence of risk, skills that are indispensable to comprehend danger, voluntariness of actions, and noncatastrophic results.

...