tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/perception-of-risk-8691/articlesPerception of risk – The Conversation2015-10-11T19:27:51Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/470342015-10-11T19:27:51Z2015-10-11T19:27:51ZMany fear the worst for humanity, so how do we avoid surrendering to an apocalyptic fate?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94341/original/image-20150910-4697-1lns391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People in the West seem to have a bleak vision of the prospects for our way of life and even for the survival of humanity.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-143158582/stock-photo-background-desert-town-after-the-nuclear-apocalypse.html?src=RbdGmwRKO-bU6VoUGBZpdQ-1-61">YorkBerlin/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A new, four-nation study has found people rate the risks of global threats to humanity surprisingly high. These perceptions are likely to be important, socially and politically, in shaping how humanity responds to the threats.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328715000828">study</a>, of more than 2000 people in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, found: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>54% of people surveyed rated the risk of our way of life ending within the next 100 years at 50% or greater;</p></li>
<li><p>almost one in four (24%) rated the risk of humans being wiped out within a century at 50% or greater;</p></li>
<li><p>almost three in four (73%) believe there is a 30% or greater risk of our way of life ending (30% said that the risk is 70% or more); and</p></li>
<li><p>almost four in ten (39%) believe there is a 30% or greater danger of humanity being wiped out (10% said the risk is 70% or more). </p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Percentage support for belief that our existing way of life or humanity has a 50% or more chance of ending in a century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://infogr.am/futures_study-974">Authors/University of Wollongong</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The study also asked people about different responses to the threats. These responses were categorised as nihilism (the loss of belief in a social or moral order; decadence rules), fundamentalism (the retreat to certain belief; dogma rules), or activism (the transformation of belief; hope rules). It found:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a large majority (78%) agreed “we need to transform our worldview and way of life if we are to create a better future for the world” (activism);</p></li>
<li><p>about one in two (48%) agreed that “the world’s future looks grim so we have to focus on looking after ourselves and those we love” (nihilism); and</p></li>
<li><p>more than one in three (36%) said “we are facing a final conflict between good and evil in the world” (fundamentalism).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Findings were similar across countries, age, sex and other demographic groups, although some interesting differences emerged. For example, more Americans (30%) believed the risk of humans being wiped out was high and that humanity faces a final conflict between good and evil (47%). This presumably reflects the strength in the US of Christian fundamentalism and its belief in the “end time”, a coming Apocalypse.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Percentage support for belief that our existing way of life or humanity has a 50% or more chance of ending in a century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://infogr.am/futures_study-974">Authors/University of Wollongong</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A world of threats coming to a head</h2>
<p>There is mounting scientific evidence and concern that humanity faces a defining moment in history – a time when it must address growing adversities or suffer grave consequences. Reputable journals are canvassing the possibilities; the new study will be published in a special issue of Futures on <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328715001135">“Confronting catastrophic threats to humanity”</a>.</p>
<p>Most focus today is on climate change and its many, potentially catastrophic, impacts. Other threats include depletion and degradation of natural resources and ecosystems; continuing world population growth; disease pandemics; global economic collapse; nuclear and biological war and terrorism; and runaway technological change.</p>
<p>Many of these threats are not new. Scientists and other experts have warned of the dangers for decades. Nevertheless, the evidence is growing stronger, especially about climate change, and never before have actual events, including natural disasters and calamities, and their sustained and graphic media coverage so powerfully reinforced the possible impacts. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, then, surveys reveal widespread public pessimism about the future of the world, at least in Western countries. This includes a common perception of declining quality of life, or that future generations will be worse off. </p>
<p>However, there appears to have been little research into people’s perceptions of how dire humanity’s predicament is, including the risk of collapse of civilisation or human extinction. These perceptions have a significant bearing on how societies, and humanity as a whole, deal with potentially catastrophic futures.</p>
<h2>How does loss of faith in the future affect us?</h2>
<p>People’s responses in our study do not necessarily represent considered assessments of the specific risks. Rather, they are likely to be an expression of a more general uncertainty and fear, a loss of faith in a future constructed around notions of material progress, economic growth and scientific and technological fixes to the challenges we face. </p>
<p>This loss of faith is important, yet hardly registers in current debate and discussion. We have yet to understand its full implications.</p>
<p>At best, the high perception of risk and the strong endorsement of an activist response could drive a much greater effort to confront global threats. At worst, with a loss of hope, fear of a catastrophic future erodes people’s faith in society, affecting their roles and responsibilities, and their relationship to social institutions, especially government. </p>
<p>It can deny us a social ideal to believe in – something to convince us to subordinate our own individual interests to a higher social purpose.</p>
<p>There is a deeply mythic dimension to this situation. Humans have always been susceptible to apocalyptic visions, especially in times of rapid change; we need utopian ideals to inspire us. </p>
<p>Our visions of the future are woven into the stories we create to make sense and meaning of our lives, to link us to a broader social or collective narrative. Historians and futurists have emphasised the importance of confidence and optimism to the health of civilisations and, conversely, the dangers of cynicism and disillusion.</p>
<p>Despite increasing political action on specific issues like climate change, globally the scale of our response falls far short of matching the magnitude of the threats. Closing this gap requires a deeper understanding of how people perceive the risks and how they might respond.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was co-authored by Richard Eckersley, founding director of <a href="http://www.australia21.org.au/">Australia21</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melanie Randle receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>People rate the risks of global threats to humanity surprisingly high. We need to understand the impacts of a loss of faith in notions of material progress and scientific and technological fixes.Melanie Randle, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/362712015-01-15T06:04:10Z2015-01-15T06:04:10ZAir travel is safe and getting safer – whatever else you might have read<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69039/original/image-20150114-3879-1nerl3n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Another tube filled with explosive fuel, potential ignition sources and people transported safely.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alice-photo/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve been following the news it might seem like there’s been a lot of air crashes recently. It might seem that flying has become a risky business.</p>
<p>In a society with a free press and a great number of publications, the likelihood that bad things will happen can be overstated to the point where the public begins to think and act irrationally. Nick Pidgeon, Roger Kasperson and Paul Slovic describe this phenomenon in their 2003 book, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x/pdf">The Social Amplification of Risk</a>, where individuals, social groups or institutions such as the press act as “amplification stations”, heightening or dampening certain aspects of the message leading to different interpretations.</p>
<p>For example, the disappearance of <a href="https://theconversation.com/flight-mh370-confirmed-lost-experts-respond-24752">Malaysia Airlines flight MH370</a>, the shooting down of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/flight-mh17">Malaysia Airlines flight MH17</a>, the loss of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-28460625">Air Algérie flight AH5017</a> and most recently <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/airasia-flight-qz8501">Air Asia flight QZ8501</a>: the hyperbolic reporting surrounding these events can induce feelings of dread. <em>In extremis</em>, a routine activity such as hopping on a plane can become stigmatised to the point where the facts and figures surrounding its relative safety are misinterpreted or ignored.</p>
<p>As another example, in the energy sector far more workers <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html">are killed mining coal</a> than are killed operating nuclear power plants. Yet because of the association of civilian nuclear power with nuclear weapons, and because of the stigmatisation of nuclear power generation from the 1960s onwards – amplified by accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima and environmentalists’ media-savvy campaigns – many believe the opposite to be true.</p>
<p>In the same way that a handful of nuclear accidents had an outsize influence on the perception of nuclear energy’s safety, so the loss of flights MH370, MH17, AH5017 and QZ8501 have influenced how safe people perceive commercial aviation to be. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69040/original/image-20150114-3883-umb6w5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69040/original/image-20150114-3883-umb6w5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69040/original/image-20150114-3883-umb6w5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69040/original/image-20150114-3883-umb6w5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69040/original/image-20150114-3883-umb6w5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69040/original/image-20150114-3883-umb6w5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69040/original/image-20150114-3883-umb6w5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s not what you think.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Wick/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The numbers don’t lie</h2>
<p>This has led to, and is fuelled by, headlines such as “<a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/after-mh17-two-other-plane-crashes-it-still-safe-fly-1638654">After MH17 And Two Other Plane Crashes, Is It Still Safe To Fly?</a>” and many <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2704340/Is-safe-fly-As-ANOTHER-jet-crashes-plane-disaster-fatalities-soar-300-experts-reveal-2014-one-SAFEST-years-aviation-history.html">others in a similar vein</a>. Aviation journalist David Learmount observed: “The 2014 Malaysian disasters… have twisted perceptions of airline safety”. The subsequent loss of AirAsia flight QZ8501 in the last days of December will only have heightened those concerns.</p>
<p>However, despite these high-profile disasters and the media coverage around them, last year was one of the industry’s safest. According to <a href="https://d1fmezig7cekam.cloudfront.net/VPP/Global/Flight/FG%20Club/In%20Focus/Environment/Safety%20Annual%20Review%202014-1.pdf">Flightglobal’s report</a>, last year’s global fatal accident rate of one per 2.38 million flights makes 2014 the safest year ever, following one accident per 1.91 million flights in 2013, one per 2.37 million in 2012, one per 1.4 million in 2011 and one per 1.26 million in 2010.</p>
<p>According to the Aviation Safety Network, of aircraft carrying more than 14 passengers and excluding sabotage, hijacking, and military accidents, in 2014 there were <a href="http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/period/stats.php?cat=A1">20 crashes accounting for 692 fatalities</a> – one of the lowest accident rates on record, even if the number of casualties is up on recent years, the highest since 2010.</p>
<p>So why do we think the opposite? Roughly one-third of passengers are what the industry calls “nervous flyers”, who tend to assume the worst. The academics suggest that individuals either dampen or amplify risk signals. Some find the thought of not being in control unnerving, others are content to trust the unknown strangers – pilots, controllers, dispatchers, loaders, fuellers, engineers, regulators – who make it possible. Trust issues induce negativity. The tone of post-disaster newspaper headlines, especially those in many tabloids, border on alarmist. Such hyperbole is also capable of influencing some people.</p>
<p>It’s true that flying is not without risk: flying several hundred people tens of thousands of feet above the earth at close to the speed of sound in an environment subject to turbulence and low temperatures (-55°C) in a pressurised aluminium tube packed with fuel and potential ignition sources <a href="http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/realistic-ndash-ignore-hype-flight-MH370/story-20822435-detail/story.html">simply cannot be without risk</a>. Fortunately, thanks to the superhuman efforts of those working at the daily grind of commercial aviation, flying is remarkably safe. </p>
<p>Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, many Americans stopped flying. This switch to <em>terra firma</em> produced a spike in transport-related deaths. Why? Because flying is safer than almost every other mode of transportation. Had the defectors stuck with aviation there would have been fewer deaths. Ironic. By far and away the most risky form of transport is by motorcycle, which is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/24/avoid-air-travel-mh17-math-risk-guide">more than 3,000 times more deadly than flying</a>. Travelling in a car or truck is about 100 times more dangerous, while taking the train is twice as deadly as flying.</p>
<p>Clearly, failing to perceive where the real risk lies, or misconceiving risk where there is none, can have deadly consequences. It is not flying that kills, but fear of flying.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36271/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Bennett has received funding from BALPA. He is affiliated with the RAeS and Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (Air Safety Group).</span></em></p>If you’ve been following the news it might seem like there’s been a lot of air crashes recently. It might seem that flying has become a risky business. In a society with a free press and a great number…Simon Ashley Bennett, Director of Civil Safety and Security Unit, University of LeicesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/326852014-12-02T19:23:31Z2014-12-02T19:23:31ZRisky business: why we shouldn’t stereotype female board directors<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62867/original/6d2vpdxw-1414406984.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Research dispels the myth that if Lehman Brothers had been "Lehman Sisters" it would not have collapsed</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/opinion/08kristof.html">popular notion abroad</a> that women are not risk takers and their mere presence on a bank board will reduce risky strategies and behaviours. </p>
<p>Over the past years there has been an increasing trend of female directors on company boards. A leading factor has been the introduction of gender diversity policies. Already women hold <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a24982fa-4f07-11e4-a1ef-00144feab7de.html#axzz3HL5p6eST">23% of directorships</a> in the United Kingdom’s top companies, just shy of the government’s target of 25% by 2015.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.companydirectors.com.au/Director-Resource-Centre/Governance-and-Director-Issues/Board-Diversity/Statistics">Australian Institute of Company Directors</a>, at the end of August this year, 18.3% of top 200 ASX company board directors were women. </p>
<p>Among the Big Four banks, the ratio ranges from two women on a board of 12 for NAB, to four women on a board of nine for Westpac. On the Reserve Bank of Australia board, three of the nine directors are women.</p>
<p>Does this mean our banks, by virtue of this trend, are falling into an increasingly safe pair of hands?</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/jun/21/eu-women-bank-directors">safety factor concept</a> has been used in the past to support the argument for gender quotas for boards. </p>
<p>Some of the world’s <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-09-344_en.htm?locale=en">leading economic spokeswomen</a> (and men) have very publicly argued women are “typically” more risk-averse and therefore their presence on boards helps contain risky behaviour. This premise led to what became known as the “Lehman Sisters” hypothesis, which arose in the years following the global financial crisis. The theory was if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters (or brothers and sisters), there would have been no collapse.</p>
<h2>Why more women on boards will not lead to less risk</h2>
<p>Sadly for those who believe banks revel in the occasional risky business, adding more women to the board is unlikely to have an impact.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2380036">research paper</a> I co-authored with the University of Queensland’s Vanitha Ragunathan, we showed that more women on boards will not lead to less risk in banks. </p>
<p>Women who choose to follow a career path leading to a directorship are not the “typical” woman in risk-aversion studies. Instead, female directors are likely to be less risk-averse than the “typical” woman because of selection. That is, they would not have chosen this career path if they were so risk-averse.</p>
<p>Selection is likely to be even more important for financial firms because finance is a business dealing with risk. Women in finance may well have the same average levels of risk aversion as men in finance.</p>
<p>Our research showed that female MBA students who choose to enter finance after graduating are much less risk-averse than female MBA students not entering finance. In fact, female MBA students in finance are less risk-averse than male MBA students in finance. </p>
<p>The research shows the dangers of stereotyping women. Applying gender differences that may occur within the population to the management level does not work.</p>
<h2>But gender diversity has other benefits</h2>
<p>However, though having a greater proportion of women on bank boards may not reduce risk, it does provide other benefits.</p>
<p>Our study reviewed around 300 large publicly traded United States banks and bank holding companies across a four-year period spanning the 2007-2008 financial crisis. We found that US banks with more women on their boards were not less risky during this period. However, they did perform better during the financial crisis. </p>
<p>Male directors on boards with more women have fewer attendance problems. Female directors also tend to perform different committee duties than male directors. </p>
<p>Women are more likely to sit on board committees, especially those with key monitoring duties such as audit or corporate governance committees. However, they are not more likely to sit on banks’ risk committees. Banks themselves seem to not view their female directors as being more or less prone to avoiding risks than their male directors.</p>
<p>We still do not have a complete understanding of how and why gender diversity matters for corporate outcomes. We also do not know when diversity matters. However, the concept of using women on bank boards as a quick fix for bad corporate behaviour is simplistic and devalues the other benefits that diversity brings.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/32685/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Renee Adams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There is a popular notion abroad that women are not risk takers and their mere presence on a bank board will reduce risky strategies and behaviours. Over the past years there has been an increasing trend…Renee Adams, Professor of Finance, Commonwealth Bank Chair in Finance, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.