Assessment of Risk

So oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween, rail on in utter ignorance of what each other mean and prate about an elephant not one of them has seen!

John Godfrey Saxe, The Blind Men and the Elephant.

Introduction

The materials presented thus far provide the philosophical basis to begin the applied unit of Sociology 415. We start by learning seven approaches to technology risk assessment. This information is critical because we need to know the source of risk assessments and the strengths and weaknesses of each source. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to risk assessment helps us understand public responses and how to tailor risk communication messages to fit different types of risk assessment. Importantly, as responsible change agents, we need to know for ourselves the limitations of different types of risk assessment. The key point of this section is that technology should be evaluated simultaneously from multiple approaches wherein each approach might yield different findings about the wisdom of adopting a technology.


Compass

    Key Questions

      What criteria are appropriate for dealing with risks?
      How safe is safe enough?
      Should society adopt a set of uniform criteria for all types of risk regardless of context?
      Who should be involved in designing these criteria?
      Who should be held accountable if the criteria prove inadequate?

    Examples

      What are the technical risks (i.e., hazards) of the sampler technologies?

      What are the social risks (i.e., outrage) associated with the sampler technologies?

      What moral or ethical issues arise in the application of the sampler technologies and how do these issues affect public risk assessments?


Seven Approaches to Risk Assessment

Social Theories of Risk, edited by Sheldon Krimsky and Dominic Golding, addresses how individuals and institutions evaluate and communicate to the public about technology risks. We review the chapter written by Ortwin Renn entitled, "Concepts of Risk: A Classification," to learn about approaches to evaluating technology.

Renn classifies different approaches to risk assessment by their answers to three essential questions:
  1. How can we specify or measure uncertainties?
  2. What are the undesirable outcomes?
  3. What is the underlying concept of reality?
The seven approaches to risk assessment derived from this classification scheme are organized into five sections:
  • Technical risk analysis,
  • Economic risk analysis,
  • Psychological risk analysis,
  • Sociological risk analysis, and
  • Cultural risk analysis.
Technical Risk Analysis
The Actuarial Approach

Characteristics

Risk is measured as expected value (i.e., arithmetic average) based upon previous occurrences of undesirable events. Undesirable events are defined as physical harm to humans or other ecosystems, wherein these events can be observed with sense data (e.g., excluding events such as subjective perceptions). The underlying concept of reality is positivist: that undesirable events are easily recognized, agree upon by all, and limited to what is observed.

Assumptions

This approach assumes that sufficient data exists to make meaningful predictions about future events and that the causal mechanism that underlies the occurrence of previous undesirable events will remain stable over the prediction period.

Strengths and Limitations

The actuarial approach provides quantification of undesirable events and an indication of what frequency to expect for future occurrences of these events. It assigns risk without prejudice because it does not provide an explanation of why undesirable events occur. Because it does not attempt to identify causal mechanism, however, it gives little guidance on how to prevent or predict future occurrences of undesirable events. Also, because the actuarial approach attempts to quantify hazard, it is subject to the types of observation and measurement errors described in the next sections on critiques of risk assessment.

Examples of Use

The assignment of automobile insurance rates for different segments of the population provides a good example of the actuarial approach to risk assessment. Younger drivers pay higher insurance rates than do older drivers because historical evidence shows that younger drivers have more accidents than do older drivers. This assignment of a higher insurance rate to John, Jr. is not an expression of prejudice against him; it is simply an assertion that persons in his age group are more likely to be involved in an automobile accident than persons in the age group of John, Sr. John, Jr. might be an excellent driver, perhaps even a better one than is John, Sr. But Jr. pays a higher rate for automobile insurance due to the expected value for his age group.

The Toxicological/Epidemiological Approach
Characteristics

The toxicological/epidemiological approach attempts to identify causal mechanisms in occurrences of undesirable events. This focus on explaining why negative events occur requires the application of scientific theory to analysis of previous events. Hence, this approach represents a considerable advancement over the actuarial approach in its attempt to explain the occurrence of undesirable events. As with the actuarial approach, undesirable events are considered to be observable and reality is thought of as positivist in nature.

Assumptions

This approach assumes that the correct theoretical explanation has been applied to the data on previous undesirable events. It assumes that events can be explained and that future events will, under conditions specified by a theory, occur in accordance with theoretical predictions.

Strengths and Limitations

The toxicological/epidemiological approach provides quantification of undesirable events, an explanation of these events, and therefore a rationale for predicting the occurrence of undesirable events in the future if theoretical conditions exist. But it depends upon correct specification of theory. If the theory is free from misspecified spurious or suppressor relationships, then the risk assessment will be relatively correct subject to the errors of observation and measurement as described below and in the critique of risk assessment.

Examples of Use

Modeling events is a common practice in science and modeling undesirable events is one of the keystones of risk assessment. In quantitative risk assessment, technical experts attempt to derive expected frequencies of undesirable events based upon experience with previous events and theoretical expectations of conditions occurring that would lead to an undesirable event occurring in the future. Thus, a technical expert might conclude theoretically that the use of Pesticide A will result in one additional person in ten million contracting cancer than would be the case if Pesticide A were not to be used.

The Probabilistic Approach
Characteristics

Probabilistic risk assessment is the use of modeling applied to technology systems rather than to a single event. This approach relies upon the application of logic systems such as fault-tree or event-tree analyses to arrive at a quantitative assessment of overall system failure as some function of the probability of the failure for each of the components of the system. Undesirable events are considered as observable and positivist in nature.

Assumptions

The approach assumes that theories for each individual risk assessment are correct and that the procedure for combining the probabilities of individual failures to arrive at an overall assessment of failure is correct.

Strengths and Limitations

The probabilistic approach is useful for quantifying the probability of system failure for complex technologies. It is difficult to model, however, the probability of common mode failure, (the simultaneous breakdown of more than one system component) and human-machine interactions. The approach is limited by all the possible errors of observation and measurement outlined in the critiques of risk assessment. But note that such failures in precision can occur for each component of the overall system and that each probability for error is multiplied by the probability for error in subsequent components. Thus, the overall assessment of failure can be highly inaccurate.

Examples of Use

Many technologies consist of a system of individual technologies. In fact, the technologies people tend to fear the most--nuclear power plants, petrochemical refineries, and food safety nets--consist of many individual components that might fail, which would result in total system failure. The risk management approach taken in such cases is to institute backup systems in the event that one system fails and early warning systems to detect an impending component or system failure.

Critique of Technical Approaches

Renn points out that technical analyses of risk are critiqued in the following ways:
  • People have different values and preferences that affect their perceptions of risk.
  • Human interaction with technological systems is difficult to model quantitatively. Outside the domain of all forms of technical assessment, for example, is the probability of technology failure due to human mismanagement or irresponsible behavior.
  • The institutional structure designed to manage risk itself might be inadequately designed or managed to do so.
  • Technical approaches imply risk management practices in proportion to quantitative risk assessment. People, however, also desire risk management policies that include objectives such as fairness, equity, and sense of morality/ethics.


Application in Context

    What is the technical risk assessment of food irradiation?

    Quantitative Risk Assessments
    • Food irradiation is perhaps the most studied food processing technology, with over 50 years of research on its effects.
    • In theory, the dosages of gamma rays applied in food processing should allow for virtually no chance of survival for microorganisms living in or on the food.
    • Studies that seem to show adverse health effects from eating irradiated food have been discounted because of serious flaws in methodology.
    • The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that irradiated food is safe to eat.

    Critical Thinking
    • Qualified epidemiologists have critiqued the studies used by the FDA in approving food irradiation as having serious flaws in methodology. These persons nevertheless support the technology.
    • Therefore, note that technical assessments are critiqued as being flawed by both proponents and opponents of food irradiation.
    • Is it possible to conduct scientific inquiry that is not flawed? If not, then how should the consumer interpret conflicting accounts of scientific credibility?



The Economic Approach
Characteristics

Risk is measured as expected utility and undesirable events are defined as instances where the costs of a technology outweigh its benefits. Expected utility is the estimated value of the technology in consideration of its use and the costs of its use. From the economic perspective, if estimated benefits outweigh the estimated costs, then the technology has a favorable overall risk assessment. This approach marks a significant departure from technical approaches in that the maximization of satisfaction rather than reduction of physical harm is the desired outcome. In the move from technical to social science risk assessment the central question shifts from, "Is the technology safe?" to "Is the technology safe enough?"

Assumptions

The economic approach assumes that costs and benefits can be accurately estimated and agreed upon by all. It assumes that costs and benefits can be measured in economic terms using a common denominator (i.e., money). Also, it assumes that all potential costs and benefits have been anticipated and integrated within the cost/benefit analysis. The economic approach assumes a rational actor; that is, someone who acts entirely upon estimated utilitarian costs and benefits and who has full knowledge of these costs and benefits.

Strengths and Limitations

Evaluating risk as a function of costs and benefits provides a universally understood basis for technology assessment. But realizing the potential usefulness of the economic approach entails overcoming some important limitations:
  1. Cost benefit analysis relies upon estimated costs and benefits, which are subject to the types of observation and measurement errors of technical risk assessments.
  2. Costs and benefits do not necessarily accrue at the same time. Benefits might lag behind costs or costs might lag behind benefits.
  3. It is difficult to place issues of social welfare and perceptions of equity and fairness in terms amenable to cost/benefit analysis.
  4. The assumption of a rational actor rarely holds true in practice. People take into account other issues besides utilitarian ones in making decisions about complex and controversial technologies.
  5. The reliance upon utilitarian contractual exchange poses potential ethical problems for a society. Utilitarian contractual exchange would bring about a situation where the poorest communities would bargain for the most risk (i.e., exchanging risk for cash), meaning that the poorest members of society would bear the most cost for potentially hazardous technologies.
  6. It can be difficult to include in cost-benefit analysis all favorable and unfavorable externalities (i.e., costs and benefits not immediately recognized in the initial evaluation of a technology).
Examples of Use

Cost-benefit analysis provides a valuable tool for understanding what is exchanged for technology risk. By weighing potential benefits against estimated risks, the public is provided with the information needed for rational decision making regarding the level of risk they are willing to tolerate in exchange for potential payoffs from a technology.


Application in Context

    What is the cost-benefit analysis of food irradiation?

    This is the most recent information available on the web regarding retail sales of irradiated food:

    1. On May 16, 2000, Huisken Meats, based in Minneapolis, MN, began the first commercial market testing of irradiated food (i.e., frozen beef patties). This initial rollout to 84 groceries quickly expanded to hundreds of stores in Minnesota and other states.
    2. On July 31, 2000, Hawaii Pride began shipping irradiated fruit products to the mainland United States. In May, 1999,
    3. The SureBeam Corporation, a division of Titan Corporation, opened its first irradiation facility. One year later, in cooperation with Huisken Meats, it was shipping irradiated ground beef patties to thousands of groceries in 32 states. By January of 2004, however, SureBeam was out of business due to poor demand for irradiated food (see related article).


The Psychological Approach
Characteristics

Risk is measured as subjective utility. As specified in much more detail under the section on Risk Communication, subjective utility takes into account not only assessments of technical hazard (i.e., estimated physical harm), but also outrage, (i.e., emotional reactions to estimates of technical hazard). The approach focuses on personal preferences rather than "objectively defined" probabilities and attempts not to define hazard but explain why people are willing to accept some risks and not others. More detail on outrage factors is outlined in a later section of Soc 415.

Assumptions

The psychological approach assumes that subjective utilities are adequately recognized by the actor and that these assessments are rationally applied to intentions and behavior. Hence, it assumes that behavior follows from perceptions, even if perceptions are not necessarily based upon technical assessments of hazard but reflect instead emotional reactions to estimated hazard.

Strengths and Limitations

This approach recognizes that emotions guide risk assessments as much as do rational decisions about probability of harm and the balance of utilitarian costs and benefits. It brings people and their emotions into the risk assessment process. It is difficult, however, to translate emotional reactions into public risk policy. Should public policy be altered because people fear a technology that technical experts deem to be low risk?

Examples of Use

Knowing public outrage related to a technology can help in the design of risk communication strategies and message content. In the section on Risk Communication we will learn many important guidelines for communicating to an outraged public about complex and controversial technology.


Application in Context

    What are psychological perspectives on food irradiation?

    Opinion polls generally show that most consumers are concerned about food safety and consider irradiation to be a safe process. I have yet to see an opinion poll, however, that informed respondents of the concerns raised by its opponents.

    Social science experiments in both laboratory and field settings, wherein respondents are introduced to statements made by both proponents and opponents, show that overall opinions tend to be noncommittal to slightly negative toward food irradiation. Later in the course we will explore the implications of these findings in much more detail. In general, for complex and controversial technologies, it is expected that negative information will carry disproportionate weight initially. If the technology is strongly endorsed by respected people/organizations, this initial skepticism shifts toward acceptance. This phenomenon, which later we identify as the "diffusion effect," is central to understanding the social science of technology adoption. Unit Three of Sociology 415 is devoted to learning strategies for gaining adoption of complex and controversial technologies.

    See: Figure on Trust presented in class.



The Sociological Approach
Characteristics

It is recognized that risk perceptions reflect negotiated meanings through interaction with others. Renn classifies sociological approaches to risk using two dimensions:
  1. Individual versus structural, and
  2. Objective versus constructivist.
Structural assessments emphasize the importance of societal definitions of risk rather than the processes by which risk evaluations are formulated. Individual approaches focus on how socially constructed risk is achieved through human interaction. Objective approaches are positivist in considering risks as observable and real whereas constructivist approaches think of risk as social artifacts fabricated from social interaction.

Note: Dr. Sapp prefers the taxonomy presented in the Course Description, wherein sociological studies are classified according to their emphasis on:
  1. Social structure and functioning,
  2. Critical theory, or
  3. Human agency.
Whatever the classification system used, the critical element of the sociological perspective is that humans, through their interactions with one another, create expectations that influence public decision making regarding complex and controversial technology.

Assumptions

The assumptions of the sociological approach are that humans behave differently in groups than they would as individuals, that normative expectations are formed through human interaction, and that these expectations influence risk evaluations.

Strengths and Limitations

The sociological approach can be used to understand and influence the social construction of risk. By understanding fundamental properties of human collectivities (e.g., collectivities have prestige hierarchies and normative expectations for behavior) one can gain an understanding of the process of public decision making and exert some influence upon public decisions. Much more description of the sociological approach and its strengths and limitations is provided in the sections on the Diffusion of Innovations.

Examples of Use

Because sociological studies on risk are undertaken from three different paradigms, examples of their use vary widely. In Soc 415, we will emphasize principles of human agency to focus on understanding and influencing the behavior of rational actors in their risk decisions. Social mobilization theory, as one example of the structure-function paradigm, examines the circumstances under which individuals are motivated to actively promote or oppose certain technologies. Also as examples of the structure-function paradigm, organization theory investigates organizational change that occurs in response to the adoption of new technologies and systems theory examines how institutions affect and are affected by technological adoption. The critical paradigm motivates studies on the distribution of risk and the control of technology development and dissemination by the powerful elite. The human agency paradigm investigates how interaction with others influences consumers' opinions about complex and controversial technologies.


Application in Context

    How do social factors affect opinions of food irradiation?

    At the same time that Huisken Meats began their market testing of irradiated beef patties in Minneapolis, MN, sociologists at Iowa State University began tracking consumer opinions in a study of how human agency affects adoption of food irradiation. Although much research has been conducted on human agency over the past 35 years, few opportunities have arisen where researchers were able to track opinions over time beginning at the introduction of a controversial technology.

    As anticipated from theories of human agency, initial public skepticism toward irradiated food shifted toward acceptance over time. This shift was influenced most strongly by endorsements of respected people/organizations. Unit Three discusses this "diffusion effect" in more detail.



The Cultural Approach
Characteristics

Risk evaluations reflect patterns of cultural beliefs. Anthropologists identify five generic clusters of values that distinguish different societal cultures or subcultures within a society. This different groups perceive technological risk in predictable ways in accordance with the belief pattern they hold. The five belief patterns are:
  1. Atomized individuals: Risk is out of the control of humans. Safety is a matter of luck.
  2. Bureaucrats: Risks are acceptable as long as institutions have rules by which to control them. Trust in the system to adequately regulate risks.
  3. Entrepreneurs: Risks offer opportunities and should be accepted as an exchange for possible benefits. The only thing that is constant is change.
  4. Egalitarians: Risks should be avoided unless they are inevitable to protect the common good.
  5. Hermits: Risks are acceptable as long as they do not involve coercion of others.
Assumptions

The cultural approach assumes that culturally defined belief patterns predispose human interaction to arrive at predictable evaluations of technology risk. The definition of undesirable events, the generation and estimation of risk, and depiction of reality reflect cultural belief patterns.

Strengths and Limitations

It can be difficult to assign causality within the culturalist perspective: which comes first, the culture or the beliefs that comprise culture? In any event, this perspective provides insight into how enduring belief patterns influence aggregate perceptions of risk. It should be noted that this approach does not imply cultural determinism; risk evaluations are not predetermined by cultural belief systems.

Examples of Use

To the extent that the cultural approach incorporates beliefs about the morality or ethics of a technology into risk assessment, it highlights the importance of understanding technology within the context of people's efforts to grasp the meaning of technology and its role in the betterment of the human experience. In a sense, beliefs about morality and ethics serve as a "trump card" on all technologies; technologies not deemed moral despite their efficacy are rejected by responsible societies (e.g., chemical warfare).


Application in Context

    How do cultural factors affect opinions of food irradiation?

    Every scientific and public health agency worldwide that has reviewed scientific findings on food irradiation has endorsed it as a safe alternative to reducing food borne pathogens. Yet irradiated food has been slow to reach the marketplace because of consumer concerns about its safety. Trust in science and technology is key to gaining adoption of controversial technologies. Much of trust depends upon perceptions about the compatibility of a new technology with existing practices and ethical standards of behavior.

    One key to gaining adoption of food irradiation has been the strong endorsements it has received from agencies that are trusted to maintain high standards of scientific integrity and ethical behavior.



Conclusions

Understanding that risk is multifaceted explains how societies can be in conflict over technology adoption and why technology adoption sometimes can take a long time to achieve. Renn makes these observations about the seven approaches to risk assessment:
  1. All approaches have benefits and drawbacks.
  2. All approaches are necessary for a complete understanding of risk.
Go Back to Previous Page Go Forward to Next Page Go to the Home Page Go to the Reading Assignments Page