Chapter preview

This chapter introduces the definitions of hazard and risk, detailing how they are often confused. It goes on the describe the great debates of the last twenty years between science and social science that have called into question the existence of objective risk. The perspectives of Douglas, Giddens and Beck are briefly outlined. The role of fundamental uncertainty in undermining scientific bases for estimating risk and the difficulties of the precautionary principle as a regulatory tool are considered. The basis for producing a psychological framework for analysing risk is presented. This is a framework which requires data at levels of analysis that encompass all from the intra-psychic to the societal. A series of key questions that an integrative social psychological analysis of risk must address is listed.

Risk and hazard

Risk has been the arena for some of the most interesting debates in the social sciences of recent years. In effect, risk has been released from the sole ownership of the physical sciences, where it was treated as something that should be assessed and estimated quantitatively – if only the right tools could be developed. Instead, it has been captured by philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, geographers, social anthropologists and psychologists, who have all brought their own critical lenses to the conceptualisation of risk. However, the prisoner is not reconciled to its fate, ever and again manifesting in some new guise to evade captivity.