Why do people do what they do? Why do they do things that do not seem logical? Why do people change what they do according to the social context? How do social arrangements influence judgment and decision-making? How is risk logical? These are the issues that concern the social psychology of risk.
The social psychology of risk is the application of the principles of social psychology to risk. I found an article by Dr. Robert Long and he had a foundation of this discipline. He emerged from his postgraduate studies in occupational health and safety. (Long, 2012)
Social psychology of risk is concerned with how social arrangements affect decision-making and judgment in danger. What this means is that all social relations, social environments, discourse and organization affect human judgment and decision-making in danger.
Risk is not objective, rather the perception of risk is conditioned by social psychological factors. It shows that risk perception varies with life experience, cognitive bias, memory, visual and special literacy, expertise, allocation, framing, priming and anchoring. In other words, risk is a sense of built human sense associated with uncertainty, probability and context. (Slovic, 2006) For example, the risk of a person is the opportunity of another person.
Social arrangements give us meaning, purpose and accomplishment. Social arrangements also determine how we make decisions and judgments. Risk is not an engineering problem, but a social psychological problem. A technical approach to risk tends to have its training and focus on objects. Although it is great to observe what engineers think and build, it is not at the center of this discipline to understand human organization, collective consciousness and the collective unconscious in response to objects.
The challenge for leaders is to understand risk as a compromise governed by the social psychology of goals. The key to maturity of leadership in risk is to understand the nature of motivation and why people do what they do. In addition, leaders need to understand that fallibility and human risk create a problem. These problems extend beyond the notion of complexity and are known for their unavailability and failure.
If leadership is to be mature in risk, it must understand how objectives compete (Cameron & Quinn, 2009). If leadership is to be ripe, it must understand how risk creates meaning (through compromises and by-products) for humans and leaders, and how to generate vision, influence others and promote intelligence risk.
(Riggio, 2016) focuses on the social relationship or social contract between the leader and the followers as a path towards leadership maturity and wisdom in risk. The social contract between leadership and follow-up is much more than the traits of the leader. Somewhere along the journey, the managerial discourse has lost sight of the follower, the social contract and the social arrangements. This is where the social psychology of risk enters the discussion and asks the question: “What social arrangements create a maturity of effective leadership in risk?
The idea of maturity and wisdom in risk is not a common discourse in industry, but we mean the predominance of the language of controls and the police. Maturity can be understood as an endless journey up a set of escalators, maturity and wisdom, one never “arrives” but still remembers undeveloped stages of development.
Riggio, R. E. (2016). Are Leadership and Management Essential for Good Research? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232551601_Leadership_development_The_current_state_and_future_expectations Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2009). Developing a Discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship. http://dx.doi.org/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e369/e41e957a3923f7b99dcfb25ec9cd22ba9052.pdf
Long, R. (2012). Risk interpretation and action: A conceptual framework for responses to natural hazards. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420912000040