Attitudes to risk

The relationship between (MSF), p, and 17 in Eq. (9-106) is shown graphically in Fig. 9-27. It is the responsibility of management to decide on an acceptable value of the (MSF) for its company. The value chosen will depend on the company s attitude to risk that can be quantified in the form of a utihty curve such as the one shown in Fig. 9-25, from which a value of equivalent (MSF) can be obtained. 

In Chapter 7 I will examine how risk assessment of chemicals is carried out. In this chapter I take a closer look at the concept of risk as it is used both in technical risk assessments and in everyday life. I suggest that rather than trying to assess the risks of a technology we should ask how risky the technology is. Riskiness is a way to think about the uncertain threat that the precautionary principle refers to. I also discuss the importance of the context of the risky situation in risk evaluation and attitudes to risks. 

Risk is a complex, multi-dimensional concept. Evidence from social research on attitudes to risk suggest that in assessing a risk, people (including experts) tend to run all the different factors together the expected benefits as well as the harms who takes the decisions what is put at risk whether they have any agency in the risky situation to avoid the possible harm whether the harm is something that can be remedied or coped with. 

Organisations and institutions provide networks for risk communication, but the media holds a key position in shaping public attitudes to risk [436]. 

Equation (1) incorporates the investor s attitude to risk via the objective function U. Equation (2) represents the portfolio return. Equation (3) is portfolio risk. Constraint (4) requires that the portfolio weights sum to 100%, while constraint (5) requires that weights be positive. This latter restriction can be dropped if short selling is allowed, but this is not usually the case for most investors. 

Another attitude to risk to be considered is that of the responsible body for a structure, or a directly interested body such as an insurance company. If direct blame can be attached, or if considerable amounts of money a] involved, the attitude of the body affected will be much more cautious. 

This differences can be easily explained if we consider the way through which S, O and D fuzzy sets have been built. First of all it consider the possibihty to take into account different attitude to risk with the definition of a specific risk profile... 

The paper presents a fuzzy FMECA and makes a comparison between the new approach and the traditional one with the analysis of a case study. The results underline the main differences between the two methodologies, like the possibility of giving different weights to the risk factors (S, O D) or to define a risk profile which can vary according to the attitude to risk that a particular company or group of people may have, thus influencing priorities of intervention. 

The identification of hazards before they cause an accident is central to all accident prevention activities. However, hazard identification is not an exact science but a subjective activity where the measure of the hazard identified will vary from person to person depending on their experiences, attitude to risks, familiarity with the process, etc. By repeating, or employing a range of, identification techniques the number of residual hazards will be reduced. It is doubtful if they will all ever be totally eliminated. 

Attitude to risks involving catastrophic events and to long-term health risks compared with sudden death. 

Variations in health status, education standards and attitude to risk of local inhabitants, especialfy in underdeveloped coimtries. In such a situation, the OHS system may have to p more attention to offithe-job safety, health and seciuity (note in French safety = seciuite) than it might do in a more developed coimtry. 

This distinction appears to reflect an underlying difference between attitudes to risk based on fear and on blame. A person s fear of a risk is likely to be determined by his assessment of the hazard and probability whereas the blame he attributes (to individuals, companies or society for the existence of a risk) is far more likely to be influenced by his belief about the morality of the process which causes or sustains the hazard. Low fear of a risk is therefore compatible with high blame for its creation. 

It has been also suggested that women have a greater propensity to sacrifice themselves, for example, by rescuing young children or elderly relatives, rather than escaping on their own, but this has never been proven by field evidence. Alternatively, there may be gender differences in attitudes to risk-taking behavior that influence mortality. 

McClure J, Walkey F, Allen M (1999) When earthquake damage is seen as preventable attributions, locus of control and attitudes to risk. Appl Psychol 48 239—256 McClure J, Allen MW, Walkey F (2001) Countering fatalism causal information in news reports affects judgements about earthquake damage. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 23 109-121... 

Of course, many of these characteristics are collinear with each other. Factor analysis has been used to conclude that attitudes to risk are dependent on two major factors. The first is whether the probability and consequences of an accident were... 

---