This article was downloaded by: [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] On: 14 March 2015, At: 03:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vaeh20
Needed: A Coherent Theory of Risk Aversion Tee L. Guidotti
a
a
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health Published online: 05 Feb 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Tee L. Guidotti (2014) Needed: A Coherent Theory of Risk Aversion, Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 69:4, 189-190, DOI: 10.1080/19338244.2013.811999 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2013.811999
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, Vol. 69, No. 4, 2014 C 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright
Editorial
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 03:20 14 March 2015
Needed: A Coherent Theory of Risk Aversion There is a new catchphrase making the rounds of conversation among young people: “It’s a first-world problem.”1 That means that someone has the luxury of worrying about something because they can afford to. They live in a world that is on the whole secure and predictable and that allows them to become preoccupied with problems beyond survival and struggle. A first-world problem is when the store is out of one’s favorite cheese-flavored rice cakes, which have become a staple of one’s diet, and this causes anxiety. It is when one starts to think broodingly about what might be in the red food coloring on a cupcake and so one passes on it for the green one. A “third-world problem,” on the other hand, is being insecure about getting enough food. Irony about first-world problems has been used to devastating effect by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Water Is Life, which produced a video consisting of richcountry complaints (such as poor Wi-Fi reception out in the garden) read aloud by children and adult residents of poor countries.2 The NGO wickedly shames people who live in rich countries by making fun of their often-trivial concerns while dramatizing how the struggle for clean water in poor countries is about survival. Yet, it seems to be a natural evolution that with higher country income and greater social security, people worry more and more about small inconveniences. The same is true for small risks. Concern for bisphenol A is rather muted in countries outside the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. It is pretty much absent in countries where large segments of the population have no assured source of clean water. Society is becoming more risk-aversive, less tolerant of imposed or concealed risk, and more inclined to externalize responsibility for injury. This is a commonplace notion in risk perception, particularly with respect to real and perceived environmental hazards, and it is probably true. How do we know this? The process by which this occurs has not been fully described but probably reflects successive “generations” 2014, Vol. 69, No. 4
accepting their relatively risk-reduced environment as the norm and perceiving novel risks as intrusive and threatening. In our age, there is a sense that there should be absolute control of risk in the environment, combined with frustrated expectations for economic security in a climate that places a liberal (individual-centered) emphasis on individual rights, overwhelming demands for information, but limited individual empowerment in terms of understanding this information as knowledge or providing alternatives. The society and its institutions are populated by and influenced by successive generations of citizens who are unsure of the future, who expect low risk as a norm, and who are inclined to think of risk as imposing a violation of their human rights. It may be that as one’s needs for survival are met and one feels secure in other ways, one starts worrying about smaller and smaller risks that take on a more personal significance. However, Maslow3 taught that as basic needs are satisfied, this allows a person to act in progressively freer and less self-centered ways. Would that not mean that a person ought to be less concerned with small risks the larger their view of the world? Apparently not. A coherent social theory of risk aversion would be very useful. The implications could be immense. A reasonable theory would explain, for example, why there are pressures within institutions such as law courts, legislatures, insurance carriers, and educational institutions to consider risk as equivalent to injury and for persons who perceive themselves to be threatened to conclude that all risk is imposed and therefore compensable. But how would one know if a theory of risk aversion is correct? Would a theory of risk aversion be falsifiable? Quantitative models for describing this evolution in risk aversion are not available, at least in the easily searchable literature. Qualitative models are available on loan from sociology and humanistic psychology, where they were developed to describe behavior and attitudes among individuals. Their lack of easy quantification does not invalidate their insights. Much work has been done on the association of risk aversion with personal and family income in terms of taking 189
financial risks. However, there seems to be little work on aversion for environmental risks and its relationship to income and security. Here is an opportunity for qualitative studies as well as for quantitative models in risk perception. Here is an area that needs work and a good theory could explain a lot.
1. First world problems. Available at: http://www.urbandictionary.com/ define.php?term = First+World+Problems. Accessed March 30, 2013. 2. First World Problems Read By Third World Kids: Ad Campaign Makes Use of Ironic Meme [video]. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/first-worldproblems-read-by-third-world-kids-ad-campaing n 1943648.html. Accessed March 30, 2013. 3. Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. 1943; 50:370–396. Available at: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/ motivation.htm. Accessed January 5, 2014.
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 03:20 14 March 2015
Tee L. Guidotti Editor-in-Chief Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health
REFERENCES
190
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vaeh20
Needed: A Coherent Theory of Risk Aversion Tee L. Guidotti
a
a
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health Published online: 05 Feb 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Tee L. Guidotti (2014) Needed: A Coherent Theory of Risk Aversion, Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 69:4, 189-190, DOI: 10.1080/19338244.2013.811999 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2013.811999
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, Vol. 69, No. 4, 2014 C 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright
Editorial
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 03:20 14 March 2015
Needed: A Coherent Theory of Risk Aversion There is a new catchphrase making the rounds of conversation among young people: “It’s a first-world problem.”1 That means that someone has the luxury of worrying about something because they can afford to. They live in a world that is on the whole secure and predictable and that allows them to become preoccupied with problems beyond survival and struggle. A first-world problem is when the store is out of one’s favorite cheese-flavored rice cakes, which have become a staple of one’s diet, and this causes anxiety. It is when one starts to think broodingly about what might be in the red food coloring on a cupcake and so one passes on it for the green one. A “third-world problem,” on the other hand, is being insecure about getting enough food. Irony about first-world problems has been used to devastating effect by the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Water Is Life, which produced a video consisting of richcountry complaints (such as poor Wi-Fi reception out in the garden) read aloud by children and adult residents of poor countries.2 The NGO wickedly shames people who live in rich countries by making fun of their often-trivial concerns while dramatizing how the struggle for clean water in poor countries is about survival. Yet, it seems to be a natural evolution that with higher country income and greater social security, people worry more and more about small inconveniences. The same is true for small risks. Concern for bisphenol A is rather muted in countries outside the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. It is pretty much absent in countries where large segments of the population have no assured source of clean water. Society is becoming more risk-aversive, less tolerant of imposed or concealed risk, and more inclined to externalize responsibility for injury. This is a commonplace notion in risk perception, particularly with respect to real and perceived environmental hazards, and it is probably true. How do we know this? The process by which this occurs has not been fully described but probably reflects successive “generations” 2014, Vol. 69, No. 4
accepting their relatively risk-reduced environment as the norm and perceiving novel risks as intrusive and threatening. In our age, there is a sense that there should be absolute control of risk in the environment, combined with frustrated expectations for economic security in a climate that places a liberal (individual-centered) emphasis on individual rights, overwhelming demands for information, but limited individual empowerment in terms of understanding this information as knowledge or providing alternatives. The society and its institutions are populated by and influenced by successive generations of citizens who are unsure of the future, who expect low risk as a norm, and who are inclined to think of risk as imposing a violation of their human rights. It may be that as one’s needs for survival are met and one feels secure in other ways, one starts worrying about smaller and smaller risks that take on a more personal significance. However, Maslow3 taught that as basic needs are satisfied, this allows a person to act in progressively freer and less self-centered ways. Would that not mean that a person ought to be less concerned with small risks the larger their view of the world? Apparently not. A coherent social theory of risk aversion would be very useful. The implications could be immense. A reasonable theory would explain, for example, why there are pressures within institutions such as law courts, legislatures, insurance carriers, and educational institutions to consider risk as equivalent to injury and for persons who perceive themselves to be threatened to conclude that all risk is imposed and therefore compensable. But how would one know if a theory of risk aversion is correct? Would a theory of risk aversion be falsifiable? Quantitative models for describing this evolution in risk aversion are not available, at least in the easily searchable literature. Qualitative models are available on loan from sociology and humanistic psychology, where they were developed to describe behavior and attitudes among individuals. Their lack of easy quantification does not invalidate their insights. Much work has been done on the association of risk aversion with personal and family income in terms of taking 189
financial risks. However, there seems to be little work on aversion for environmental risks and its relationship to income and security. Here is an opportunity for qualitative studies as well as for quantitative models in risk perception. Here is an area that needs work and a good theory could explain a lot.
1. First world problems. Available at: http://www.urbandictionary.com/ define.php?term = First+World+Problems. Accessed March 30, 2013. 2. First World Problems Read By Third World Kids: Ad Campaign Makes Use of Ironic Meme [video]. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/first-worldproblems-read-by-third-world-kids-ad-campaing n 1943648.html. Accessed March 30, 2013. 3. Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. 1943; 50:370–396. Available at: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/ motivation.htm. Accessed January 5, 2014.
Downloaded by [Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries] at 03:20 14 March 2015
Tee L. Guidotti Editor-in-Chief Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health
REFERENCES
190
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health
