St Loye’s School of Health SciencesRisk BehaviourCris Burgess
Risk-taking Behaviour
Identify the main features of risk-seeking behaviour
What is ‘risk’?
Risk may be defined as “an action that jeopardises something of value”. (Reber, 1985). The object that is threatened may be a physical object, or a socially or culturally-valued psychological entity, such as self-esteem.
How do humans experience risk?
Certain acts of behaviour will produce aversive or ‘negative’ feedback. This feedback can take a number of forms: physical, social, moral etc. For example, if we drive too fast, the road noise or vibration may increase to a point where it becomes aversive, so we slow down to avoid this physical irritant. We may think of the consequences to ourselves or others of our behaviour, and the possibility getting caught by the police, snapped by a speed camera, or injuring someone in a collision. Alternatively, we may be reminded of our parents’ or friends’ attitude towards excessive speed and this social influence may have the same effect of making us slow down. These factors cause a heightened state of arousal that we find unpleasant or ‘aversive’ to varying degrees.
Ordinarily, we will take steps to reduce this aversive feedback, usually by ceasing to engage in the behaviour that produces it. However, ‘Risk Homeostasis’ theory (Wilde, 1982; 1994) has increasingly become a buzzword amongst theorists and researchers. The theory suggests that everyone has an optimal or ‘target’ level of risk, which we attempt to maintain, dependent upon changes in the environment. One of the problematic aspects of such a theory is that it is hard to associate the concept of ‘risk’, in any meaningful way, with the world in which we live. How do we assess ‘risk’ in order that we may maintain a set level?
Why do people take risks?
Perhaps a better way of approaching this idea is to take it a step back in terms of the human processes involved, and consider how we interpret our environment. Some physical states or activities, such as falling, will cause certain chemicals to be released by our central nervous system, and these chemicals will create the feelings of intense arousal. The reason for this is probably the body’s way of alerting us to a potentially dangerous situation; one which may present a threat to our well-being. It has been shown that when we experience nervous arousal, we look to our environment to interpret that arousal. In other words, the same release of chemicals and consequent feelings of arousal could be experienced as euphoria or terror, elation or fury, depending on our assessment of what is happening to us at the time. Interpretation of our environment is determined by a large number of factors, but principally by our beliefs, attitudes and preferences; that is, our likes and dislikes. One way of predicting an individual’s likes and dislikes is by assessing the factors that together make up their personality.
Some people find the heightened state of arousal pleasant – eg: horror film fans, roller-coaster fanatics, and other types of “adrenalin junkies”. Indeed, some people enjoy a level of arousal that would be highly aversive to others. These people will engage in particular ‘risky’ behaviours in order to satisfy the needs arising from their fundamental biological and psychological make-up.
Performance
stimulus level
Figure One: Human performance versus stimulus level
The ‘inverted-U’ graph (Figure One) is a recurrent feature in descriptions of human attention and nervous arousal. ‘Performance’ level refers to the efficiency and effectiveness with which an individual copes with those stimuli in the environment requiring attention. ‘Stimulus level’ may relate to the number of separate tasks requiring attention, or the overall level of stimulation. It is the level of ‘input’ with which the individual must cope. A substantial body of research (e.g.: Hebb, 1972) suggests that the human attentional system needs a certain amount of stimulation before it begins to operate at an optimal level. Our nervous system must be moderately aroused before it can operate anywhere near its peak performance level. We may experience this lack of stimulation as boredom or sluggishness. However, if we overload the system, our performance rapidly drops off and we start to make errors. Therefore, in order to sustain optimal performance, it is necessary to maintain a balance between too little stimulation and too much, ensuring that our nervous system is not over- or under-aroused. We will automatically attempt to maintain an arousal level that corresponds with our optimal performance, but the particular optimal level is different for everyone, and can be measured by assessing certain aspects of personality.
Establish a theoretical framework for rule-governed behaviour
How do rules relate to risk?
We live in a world surrounded by people, in a structured society. One of the features of a structured society is the development of a system of social rules. These socially-constructed rules – or ‘behavioural norms’ - exist to protect the weaker members of society and to ensure that the system works with the minimum of disturbance. Some of these behavioural norms are based on fundamental moral principles. Behaviour that threatens the rights or the welfare of others constitutes a ‘moral’ transgression, or act of rule-breaking. However, many rules exist purely in order to co-ordinate our world, to ensure that it runs smoothly. Breaking the rules of social etiquette harm nobody directly, but are still acts of rule-breaking. Muttering to ourselves as we walk down the street hurts nobody, but might still invite social disapproval. This type of rule is known as a ‘social convention’. Transgressions of moral and social-conventional rules attract varying degrees of social disapproval. From an early age, children are able to distinguish between the two types, and moral transgressions are always considered to be the most serious. Therefore, it might be assumed that moral transgressions will invoke stronger social disapproval than violations of social conventions.
However, many of these behavioural norms are not consistent between societies or cultures, and so particular behaviours that are acceptable or appropriate in one social group may not be so in another. Substantial research has shown that human behaviour is strongly affected by an urge to conform to the group norms, to obey the rules, avoid social disapproval, and therefore to consider oneself a part of the group, an ‘in-group’ member. The degree to which we are affected by local, group norms may also be assessed by measuring particular aspects of personality.
For most of us, social disapproval of our actions can arouse us just as powerfully as physical causes, and this serves as highly aversive feedback. Indeed, as we grow from childhood most of us will internalise the wider society’s rule system, so that we follow the rules even when nobody else is around to ensure that we do, or even when the immediate social environment does not condone such behavioural norms. As a result of this process of internalisation - or "socialisation" - for most of us, breaking these ‘higher’ rules will result in the powerful, aversive ‘moral emotions’ of guilt, shame, remorse or regret. Therefore, breaking society’s rules is, by definition, ‘risky’; “an act that jeopardises something of value”, whether that risk arises from the act itself, from the effects of the social disapproval that the act elicits, or from the unpleasant experience of one of these moral emotions.
How do people interact with rules?
Behavioural norms are usually universally applicable, and widely upheld. They arise gradually and are slow to change, which they do by common consent of the society within which they exist. Compliance to this type of rule is generally universal, but man-made rules are different. The characteristics of a particular man-made rule will affect an individual’s tendency to abide by it, or to ignore it. Verkuyten (1992) considered these characteristics to be defined by five distinct areas; clarity, source, imperativeness, objective and enforcement.
The first factor, clarity, is considered to have two aspects; unequivocality and complexity. Unequivocality refers to what the rule covers, where and when the rule is valid, and for whom the rule applies. Complexity refers to how complicated the rule is in terms of the relationships between its constituent elements. Violations of complex rules tend to have relatively long-term consequences, and so there is no need to simplify the rule. Conversely, certain rules are designed to be as clear and simple as possible due to the serious immediate consequences of their transgression.
The second factor is the source of the rule. The authority, credibility and legitimacy of the individuals and institutions who formulate legislation in all its different forms can have a significant effect on an individual’s compliance with the prescribed behaviour.
The third characteristic is the imperativeness of the rule, and concerns the promotion or prohibition of behaviours. There can be a difference between a prohibition, where one form of behaviour is forbidden, but alternatives are allowed, and an injunction, where one form of behaviour is required and all others forbidden.
The objective of a rule refers to its purpose, and its effectiveness or adequacy in performing that purpose. These two aspects are importantly distinct; ‘why should there be a rule, and if there is a need for a rule, does this one meet the requirements?’. A rule’s objective can vary enormously, both in terms of how obvious or valid its rationale is, and how well it performs in achieving its objective.
Finally, enforcement of a rule refers to the likelihood and severity of control over the rule-breaking behaviours. Rule-breaking can become tolerated in society as the factors or norms from which the rule originated change. Some rule-breaking behaviours are seen to be condoned, or even encouraged, by the non-enforcement of their governing rules; for example, the current attitude towards cannabis.
These five factors determine how legitimate the rule is perceived to be. The greater the perceived legitimacy, the more likely the rule is to be adhered to.
Individual differences in rule-breaking behaviour
What factors distinguish rule-breakers?
Interacting with the characteristics of the rule, the characteristics of the individual have a significant effect on rule-governed behaviour. Certain elements of personality make risky behaviours more likely, simply because the acts that are committed in order to satisfy the individual’s personal needs come into conflict with the rule-system. Three key areas appear to be important in governing this interaction.
High scores on certain personality traits such as impulsive sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1968) may be thought of as ‘exposing’ the individual to the likelihood of committing acts of rule violation. A sensation-seeker will seek arousal and this may lead to inappropriate behaviour. A sense of personal control over the particular sensation-seeking behaviour can increase the likelihood that the behaviour will take place, and a highly impulsive individual may engage in the behaviour without waiting to think about the potential consequences.
Other elements of personality prescribe the nature of the effects of the individual’s socialisation on these ‘risky’ behaviours. Breaking rules invites social disapproval, and human socialisation processes have ensured that this social disapproval creates an aversive state of arousal in the individual. The process of internalising the rule-system leads to large individual differences in the degree to which people are socialised. Differences in socialisation will determine whether the risky, rule-breaking behaviour is encouraged or suppressed. Indeed, it determines whether or not any consideration of the social environment takes place at all, prior to the act being committed. These personality traits may thus be thought of as ‘moderating’ the inhibitory or facilitatory effects of social influence. For example, Egoism (Weigel, Hessing & Elffers, 1987) measures the degree to which an individual will display self-centred behaviour, leading them to disregard the needs of others. This will profoundly affect their perceptions of the objective and legitimacy of certain rules, reducing the effectiveness of social disapproval as a behavioural control and increasing the likelihood that they will commit acts of rule breaking. Locus of control (Rotter, 1971) determines the degree to which an individual feels in control of their own behaviour. This may increase the chances of the risky behaviour taking place, but it also impacts on their sense of responsibility for the consequences of that behaviour. An individual with a highly ‘internal’ locus of control may be more likely to commit a risky act, but a highly 'external' locus of control may cause them to consider their behaviour to be beyond their control. The circumstances may be to blame, or luck, or some other person. This perception leads to a lack of a sense of responsibility and will thus reduce the effects of socialisation on rule-breaking. Clearly, a balance is required in terms of perceived control. Individual differences in the tendency to look into the future for potential consequences of behaviour will also determine whether or not a person breaks the rules. If someone 'lives for today', then they are unlikely to take into account consequences of behaviour that won't happen until tomorrow. They are thus more likely to behave in an inappropriate way than someone who thinks carefully about all the potential future consequences of their behaviour. Again, this tendency to think ahead (or not) may be measured by personality scales (eg: Consideration of Future Consequences scale; Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger & Edwards, 1994).
Does risk-seeking always lead to rule-breaking?
Risk-seeking behaviour does not always lead to rule-breaking because a third and final factor is relevant in rule-governed behaviour; the situation. In certain ambiguous situations, the relevant rule system may not be immediately apparent, so the ability to assess the immediate social environment for the applicable rule system is clearly important. Certain behaviours that would be inappropriate in some situations are entirely appropriate, even desirable, in other situations. For example, driving like a maniac is a bad thing on public roads, but desirable if you happen to be a Grand Prix driver. Ordering people around and imposing your will on them is inappropriate in everyday life, but entirely appropriate if you are a regimental sergeant-major or a prison officer. A sensitivity for societal norms is important for the future survival of our current culture, but certain behaviours may not be desirable in other cultures, and so a sensitivity for local norms is advantageous. The suitability of particular behaviours in certain situations depends on how aware a person is of their physical and social environment, and individual differences in this degree of awareness have been described as a consistent cognitive orientation (self-monitoring, Snyder, 1974).
Therefore, it may be seen that there are broadly three factors related to personality involved in assessing an individual’s optimal level of arousal. Firstly, there is the fundamental urge to actively engage in behaviour that may increase negative feedback in the environment, in order to increase our arousal to a level that results in optimal performance. This may be result in ‘active’ risk-taking. Secondly, there is the tendency to assess the environment for the relevant rule system that governs the social environment in which we find ourselves. This will tell us whether or not we are currently breaking a rule. A deficiency in this area is likely to result in inappropriate, rule-breaking behaviour. Finally, there is the degree to which our socialisation process has taught us to be concerned about the effect of our behaviour on other people. A disregard for the rights of others may lead to a lack of concern for the physical or psychological effects of our behaviour on other people and the consequent social disapproval that this might invite. Behaviour arising as a result of a disregard for the rights of others may be thought of as more ‘passive’ risk-taking, as it reflects a lack of constraint or inhibition, rather than a motivational drive.
Does rule-breaking always seem risky?
When we break a rule, it is likely that we leave ourselves open to a number of negative consequences. These potential negative consequences possess a number of characteristics that determine how we perceive them. How likely are they to actually happen? How far into the future will they take effect? How much will they affect us? How much will they affect those people or things around us? We might consider these potential consequences, but still commit the transgression in the belief that the consequences are unlikely, will happen so far into the future as to make their effects difficult to visualise, of sufficiently low significance to us or to other people as to make them trivial, or we may not care about the effects on other people. ‘Utility theory’ suggests that we subconsciously make a calculation called a 'subjective expected utility'. This calculation is made up of our estimate of how likely the negative consequences are and how soon they may happen, compared with the likelihood and timing of positive consequences. The lower the likelihood of negative, compared with positive consequences, or the further into the future these negative consequences are expected, the more likely the behaviour which will bring them about. A number of health-related behaviours, such as smoking cigarettes, drug-taking and unsafe sex, can be modelled in this way.