Also, could you elaborate upon what you mean by 'a feasability study exploring
individual construal of risk'? Sounds like something I was thinking about just
fifteen minutes ago. I have also been considering these ideas in terms of
identity, and Berzonsky's identity styles. I wonder if you or any other
mailers have any ideas? It seems to me there are many alternatives to the way
I can understand risk.
Lindsay Oades
Wollongong
_______________________________________________________________________________
To: pcp:;
Cc: csu@brain.wph.uq.oz.au
From: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk on Tue, 10 Oct 1995 4:38 PM
Subject: Risk
RFC Header:Received: by uow.edu.au with SMTP;10 Oct 1995 16:38:37 +1000
Received: from whisp.cs.uow.edu.au (whisp.cs.uow.edu.au [130.130.64.5]) by
wyrm.cc.uow.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.11) with ESMTP id QAA13950; Tue, 10 Oct 1995
16:38:31 +1000
Received: from norn.mailbase.ac.uk (norn.ncl.ac.uk [128.240.226.1]) by
whisp.cs.uow.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA26644; Tue, 10 Oct 1995
16:37:32 +1000
Received: by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <HAA16885@norn.mailbase.ac.uk>
(8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk); Tue, 10 Oct 1995 07:11:59 +0100
Received: from brain.wph.uq.oz.au by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id
<HAA16873@norn.mailbase.ac.uk>
(8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk) with SMTP; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 07:11:50 +0100
Received: by brain.wph.uq.oz.au (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3aas)
id AA17177; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 09:14:57 GMT
To: pcp:;
From: CSU <csu@brain.wph.uq.oz.au>
Cc: csu@brain.wph.uq.oz.au
Original-Sender: csu@brain.wph.uq.oz.au
Subject: Risk
X-Originating-Host: [130.102.132.104]
Message-Id: <1995Oct10.160038-0500@[130.102.132.104]>
Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:00:38 -0500
X-Mailer: BWMail for Windows Version 3.0a
X-List: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
Reply-To: pcp@mailbase.ac.uk
Sender: pcp-request@mailbase.ac.uk
Precedence: list
On 5 Oct 1995 Lindsay Oades wrote:
>I have been toying with a definition of risk in PCP terms.
>Threat comes to mind immediately. However I believe that it is
>not synonomous with how we generally use the term risk. Is the
>notion of perceived risk the same as a high level of awareness
>of possible threat- and how does the choice corollary help here?
>I would appreciate any ideas on this one.
A few suggestions:
If risk is framed in terms of judgment/decision making, the C-P-C
(circumspection-preemption-control) cycle may be worth a look. If
sexual risk taking is conceived of as a form of anticipation,
then read most of Kelly and others. The issue might then be one
constructs. Is the supplied construct of risk a consideration
for people or are their actions based on other more personally
meaningful constructs? Risk for some may not even be a major
consideration. Alternatively, why not do a feasibility study and
explore individual conceptions of risk.
I think there might be some value in having a look at:
Kelly G (1969). Ontological Acceleration, in Maher B (ed).
Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of
George Kelly. John Wiley, New York.
You might also find some of the decision making literature
interesting:
Jungermann, H (1986). Two camps on Rationality in, Arkes H and
Hammond K (eds). Judgment and Decision Making: An
Interdisciplinary Reader. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Kahneman D and Tversky A (1984). On the Psychology of
Prediction, in Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A (eds).
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kahneman D and Tversky A (1986). Choices, Values and Frames, in
Arkes H and Hammond K (eds). Judgment and Decision Making:
An Interdisciplinary Reader. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Brearley C (1982). Risk and Social Work. Routledgeand Kegan
Paul, London.
Regards,
Bob Green
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%