Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Risk in relationships can be considered in two distinct ways. From a psychological perspective, risk can be defined as a way of thinking about relationships (a cognitive schema) where choices to form and maintain intimate relationships are thought to involve unusually high levels of psychological/emotional investment combined with high uncertainty about outcomes and accompanied by a heightened anxiety about forming and maintaining relationships. These thoughts are likely to be the product of life-course experiences (e.g., divorce) that generate an increased desire for intimacy, but also a fear of negative consequences should a relationship become too close. From this perspective, risk is largely indistinguishable from other concepts such as anxious-ambivalent or fearful attachment styles, trust, and fear of intimacy.

Alternatively, risk can be defined in sociological terms as a perceived and/or actual characteristic of the social context within which relationships are formed and maintained. Rather than the outcome of earlier life-course experiences of individuals, risk is conceptualized as a product of changing structural and cultural conditions experienced by all individuals sharing a common social environ-ment—specifically, a context of late modernity (e.g., contemporary North America and Northern Europe). In such a context, social institutions (e.g., families, communities, and churches) no longer control or provide guidelines for forming and maintaining relationships, individuals take on more responsibility for shaping their own identity and life outcomes, and there is an increased reliance on rational decision making and technology for controlling the physical and social environment, as well as individuals' personal lives. As a result, individuals must make relationship choices that were largely made for them in previous generations and must do so under conditions of expanded options, increased uncertainty, and a greater reliance on logical means-end reasoning about what they believe should be an inherently emotional experience. In addition, these relationship decisions have greater consequence for their identity, and individuals bear more personal responsibility for negative outcomes should their relationships fail. It is in this sense that risk is considered here.

Theoretical Context

Risk in relationships is derivative of the concept of risk more broadly applied to life in modern societies. Ulrich Beck was first to develop the idea of “risk society” as a condition of “late modernity.” In this historical period, life outcomes and conditions are no longer determined by chance, fate, kinship, or divine intervention, and individuals no longer base their actions on tradition—the way things were done before—nor the dictates of family or community authorities. Instead, individuals are expected to control their own destinies by making rational decisions about the best means for achieving their personal goals without clear guidelines and with more significant and unknown consequences.

With choice comes the possibility of risk. Risk, as used in this theoretical framework, is inherently about a link between choices and their potential outcomes. Without choice, our outcomes may be uncertain or potentially negative, but we lack responsibility for those outcomes and therefore risk is not involved. If our actions are predetermined for us or based on precedent or community control, then there is little or no risk involved. If we did what we were told to do, then any negative outcomes were not our fault. However, when, as in modern societies, we are left to weigh the merits of alternative actions for achieving our goals and then make a decision based on that calculation, we are confronted with the possibility of risk.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading