Abstract
Coping with risk has captured the attention of policy-makers and laypersons alike to become a pivotal topic for technological elites, as well as social thinkers. Technical experts — engineers, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and social scientists — and social theorists have been competing for public attention in the risk arena.1 A model of coexistence juxtaposing the technical understanding of risk and the social science perspective has emerged over the last two decades. Risk in this sense can be summarized as both a potential for harm, as well as a social construction of worry.2 Defining risk as a combination of hazard and outrage, as Peter Sandman has suggested, has been the fragile but prevailing compromise in this debate, at least in the United States.3 Although the formula of ‘risk equals hazard plus outrage’ does not provide answers of how to combine scientific assessments with public perceptions, it seemed to please the professional audience and was accepted as a conceptual guideline for risk management agencies. These agencies were well-advised to base their decisions on both expert assessments and public concerns, which was a common practice in risk analysis and management.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For a philosophical appraisal of risk theories see K. Shrader-Frechette, Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 53ff.
For a sociological review see S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds, Social Theories of Risk ( Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992 )
J. Short and L. Clarke, ‘Social Organization and Risk,’ pp. 309–21 in J. Short and L. Clarke, eds, Organizations, Uncertainties, and Risk ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992 ).
Review of the implications of a constructivist versus a realist concept of risk can be found in: J. Bradbury, ‘The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk,’ Science, Technology, and Human Values, 14(4) (1989): 380–99;
O. Renn, ‘Concepts of Risk: A Classification,’ pp. 53–79 in S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds, Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992); and
E. Rosa, ‘Metatheoretical Foundations for Post-Normal Risk,’ Journal of Risk Research, 1 (1) (1998): 15–44.
A pronounced constructivist approach can be found in B. Wynne, ‘Institutional Mythodologies and Dual Societies in the Management of Risk,’ pp. 178–204 in H. Kunreuther and E. Ley, eds, The Risk Analysis Controversy: An Institutional Perspective ( Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1982 );
N. Luhmann, Risk: A Sociological Theory ( New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1993 );
K. Japp, Soziologische Risikotheorie ( Munich: Juventa, 1996 ).
Realist perspectives in the social sciences can be found in W. Catton, Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change ( Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980 );
R. Dunlap, ‘Paradigmatic Change in Social Science: From Human Exemptionalism to an Ecological Paradigm,’ American Behavioral Scientist, 24 (1) (1980): 5–14;
P. Dickens, Society and Nature: Towards a Green Social Theory ( Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992 ).
P. Sandman, ‘Hazard versus Outrage: A Conceptual Frame for Describing Public Perception of Risk,’ pp. 163–8 in H. Jungermann, R. Kasperson, and P. Wiedemann, eds, Risk Communication ( Jülich: Research Center, 1988 ).
J. Graham, ‘The Biases of Public Perception,’ SRA-Europe Meeting, Guildford: University of Surrey, 1996.
D. Okrent, ‘Risk Perception Research Program and Applications: Have They Received Enough Peer Review?’ pp. 1255–9 in C. Cacciabue and I. Papazoglu, eds, Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management ESREL ‘86-PSAM ‘86 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1996).
See also H. Sapolsky, ‘The Politics of Risk,’ Daedalus, 119 (4) (1991): 83–96.
For the United States refer to R. Zeckhauser and K. Viscusi, ‘The Risk Management Dilemma,’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545 (1996): 144–55.
See the classic article by B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, ‘How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Toward Technological Risks and Benefits,’ Policy Sciences, 9 (1978): 127–152
P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, ‘Rating the Risks,’ Environment, 21(3) (1979): 14–20, 36–9.
For a critical review written at the time refer to H. Otway and K. Thomas, ‘Reflections on Risk Perception and Policy,’ Risk Analysis, 2 (11) (1982): 69–82.
B. Fischhoff, ‘Public Values in Risk Research,’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545 (1996): 75–84.
T. Dietz, P. Stern, and R. Rycroft, ‘Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk,’ Sociological Forum, 4 (1) (1989): 47–69.
H. Margolis, Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), in particular pp. 214ff.
R. Kleim and I. Ludin, Reducing Project Risk (Aldershot: Gower, 1997), pp. 23ff.
R. Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1988 ).
See also D. Green and I. Shapiro, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science ( New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994 ), pp. 14–17.
Cf K.-D. Opp, The Rationality of Political Protest: A Comparative Analysis of Rational Choice Theory ( Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989 )
K. D. Opp, Die Entstehung sozialer Normen: Ein Integrationsversuch soziologischer, sozialpsychologischer, und ökonomischer Erklärungen ( Tübingen: Mohr, 1983 ).
T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962 ).
Cf„ R. Abelson, ‘The Secret Existence of Expressive Behavior,’ pp. 25–36 in J. Friedman, ed., The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered ( New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996 ).
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,’ Science, 185 (1974): 1124–31;
D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis in Behavioral Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986); Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World.
H. Jungermann, ‘Zur Wahrnehmung und Akzeptanz des Risikos von Grosstechnologien,’ Psychologische Rundschau, 23 (1982): 217–38, pp. 217ff.
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, ‘Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,’ pp. 67–84 in R. Hogarth and M. Reder, eds, Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987 ).
W. Edwards, ‘How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking,’ SMC-7, IEEE, 1977.
H. Simon, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations ( New York: Basic Books, 1976 )
A. Tversky, ‘Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,’ Psychological Review, 79 (1972): 281–99.
J. Weimann, Umweltökonomik: Eine theorieorientierte Einführung ( Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1991 ).
C. Helmer, ‘Social Structure, Psychology, and the Estimation of Risk,’ Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (1988): 491–519.
S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, M. Layman, and B. Combs, ‘Judged Frequency of Lethal Events,’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4 (1978): 551–78.
S. Rayner, ‘Risk and Relativism in Science for Policy,’ pp. 5–23 in B. Johnson and V. Covello, eds, The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk ( Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987 ).
A. Giddens, ‘Living in a Post-Traditional Society,’ pp. 56–109 in U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash, Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition, and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994 ).
K. Bailey, Sociology and the New Systems Theory (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), pp. 243ff.
N. Luhmann, Ökologische Kommunikation ( Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986 ).
N. Luhmann, ‘The Autopoiesis of Social Systems,’ pp. 172–92 in R. Geyer and J. van der Zouven, eds, Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control, and Evolution of Self-Steering Systems ( London: Sage, 1986 ).
J. Habermas, Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft ( Neuwied: Luchterhand, 1969 )
M. McCarthy, The Group ( Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1971 ).
A. Etzioni, A Responsive Society: Collected Essays on Guiding Deliberate Social Change ( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991 ).
J. Habermas and N. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie: Was leistet die Systemforschung? ( Franfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1971 ).
H. Esser, Alltagshandeln und Verstehen: Zum Verhältnis von erklärender und verstehender Soziologie am Beispiel von Alfred Schuetz und ‘rational choice’ (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), pp. 40ff.
K. Dowding and D. King, ‘Introduction,’ pp. 1–19 in K. Dowding and D. King, eds, Preferences, Institutions, and Rational Choice ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995 ).
J. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1990), pp. 138ff.
T. Parsons, The Social System ( Glencoe, NY: Free Press, 1951 ).
A. Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis ( Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979 ).
A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration ( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984 ).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2000 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Renn, O., Jaeger, C.C., Rosa, E.A., Webler, T. (2000). The Rational Actor Paradigm in Risk Theories: Analysis and Critique. In: Cohen, M.J. (eds) Risk in the Modern Age. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62201-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62201-6_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-62203-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-62201-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)