Introduction

 

The emotional response to risk

 

The ground seems so ridiculously far away. As your brain’s amygdala recognises the clear and present danger your heart begins to beat wildly (up to three times faster), your blood pressure increases, your mouth becomes uncomfortably dry and you have an almost irresistible urge to avoid what is about to happen. You experience the universal emotion of fear, and the perception of risk has sent your system into top gear producing a massive surge of adrenalin, noradrenalin and growth hormone. In milliseconds the brain’s hypothalamus begins to give out corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), which triggers the brain’s pituitary gland to pump out adrenocorticotropin (ACTH), which in turn persuades the adrenal glands near your kidneys to start producing cortisol. You are breathing much faster now and blood surges around your body, draining away from unimportant areas like your stomach into your muscles, and giving you “butterflies”. After all there is little point in diverting precious energy to digest your breakfast when you may need every ounce of energy just to survive! Adrenalin, noradrenalin, growth hormone and cortisol continue to be released into your blood as your pupils dilate allowing you to perceive movement around you more clearly, and see into the shadows and darkness (which may conceal further threat). Your immune system gears up to deal with any potential injuries, and emergency reserves of the energy source glucose are released in order to prepare for intense busts of muscular activity. In the blink of an eye your mind and body have geared up to act in response to the perceived risk, the so-called 'fight or flight' response. Whether or not you decide to jump out of the aeroplane and go parachuting depends upon you overcoming the natural fear of falling to your death, but why bother? What is it that motivates people to override this natural protection mechanism and take risks at all?

 

As the perception of risk triggers a cascade of biochemical changes that are experienced as high arousal and unpleasant anxiety the question is not whether you would go parachuting, but why?

 

Psychoanalytic theory

 

Psychoanalysts at the turn of the 20th century (who were inspired by Sigmund Freud) concluded that it was not normal to overcome these natural fears at all, and risk taking behaviour was in fact evidence of a diseased mind. They could not conceive of any reason why people would choose to risk their lives, and as a result concluded that risk takers were acting without reason. They failed to understand risk taking behaviour from within the confines of their own hypotheses, which lead them to classify risky behaviours as expressive of suicidal tendencies, a death wish ("Thantos") or repressed feelings of masculine inadequacy. It was therefore proposed that people such as mountaineers were illogical, or even pathological. Indeed the legacy of this train of thought continues to be influential although the balance of intellectual power has long since shifted. The main problem with this explanation of risk taking behaviour is that there is no evidence to support these speculations, a criticism that can also be raised against many other psychoanalytic ideas. Psychological research studies that have investigated the mental health of risk takers have been inconclusive or contradictory, and in some cases risk taking behaviours (e.g. ocean sailing) have even been shown to lead to increases in self-esteem. Similarly people who take financial risks in the workplace generally tend to be more successful in their jobs, findings which run contrary to the idea that risk taking is simply self-defeating. Another weakness of this approach is that normal people consider needs other than safety when making decisions about how to act. In short, a theory which places safety considerations above all else in an inflexible hierarchy does not give a good account of people's priorities in real life. Even other animals have been shown to take risks for social reasons; the underlying theory being that by taking risks that a less able animal would have to avoid they demonstrate the superiority of their genes and become more attractive as a mate. Interestingly some studies have found this phenomenon in humans too, with people who engage in high risk sports (e.g. parachuting) seen to be more sexually attractive.

 

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Freud popularised the existence of the unconscious mind, and took the still controversial view that people are fundamentally aggressive and governed by sexual drives.

 

Evolutionary perspectives

 

It is tempting to conclude that risk taking is simply a relic of more dangerous times, where risks had to be taken on a day to day basis in order to ensure our very survival. It is now widely accepted that we, as a species, are descended from a family of apes, and the psychological implications of this are fascinating. Five million years ago early man (Australopithecus) had a brain the size of a chimpanzee's, and before our brains tripled in size and became more architecturally complex, it is safe to say that our thoughts would have been somewhat more primitive. With an Ice Age approaching and many powerful and dangerous predators about, the odds of our survival in the searing heat of the African savannah were definitely against us. Hunting, scavenging and gathering food was a difficult process fraught with danger, and this was not our only problem. Faced with such a hazardous environment we were forced to take great risks, and in particular travel large distances in order to find shelter, food, and sexual partners. We had no option to "play it safe", and staying in the same place was also horrifyingly risky with starvation never far away. People who were not willing to take any risks at all would be unlikely to survive, and genes which relate to risk taking would therefore become more common through natural selection. Although our brains have become somewhat more sophisticated since then, our primal instincts still exert a powerful influence over us today. In genetic terms modern man (Homo sapiens) is simply not designed for an urbanised post-industrial lifestyle, and it is little wonder that so many people in developed countries have problems with their weight considering the ready supply of fatty and sugary food and our sedentary lives. The way in which we are socialised effects the way in which our genetic heritage is expressed, and perhaps people go rock climbing and take psychoactive drugs because they are attempting to express the primal instinct to take risks in a modern world?

 

This reconstructed skull of an early man (Australopithecus afarensis) shows the degree to which our skulls have changed as our brains have tripled in size over the last five million years.

 

A model of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) double helix which is responsible for the transmission of hereditary characteristics, and may contain genes which relate to the willingness to take risks.

 

Contemporary Theory

 

Contemporary theorists stress the role of personality traits in differentiating between people who love taking risks and those who are risk averse. Personality traits are underlying characteristics of an individual that are relatively stable over time, and explain regularities in people's behaviours. When thinking about people you know well, you will naturally have noticed how they differ, and our everyday language is full of ways of describing and comparing people. People may be "outgoing" or "unsociable", "shy" or "confident", "friendly" or "rude", and so on. We instinctively observe that people react differently to the same situations, and these differences are caused by natural variations in personality traits. There are a small number of broad traits which account for the majority of people's personalities, and the two broad traits of Extraversion vs. Introversion and Emotional stability vs. Neuroticism are clearly the most important. There is less agreement concerning the other main dimensions of personality, with Eysenck suggesting one further dimension (Psychoticism vs. Humaneness), and Costa and McCrae suggesting three further dimensions (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness). Each of these broad dimensions of personality are comprised of a number of smaller traits which are narrower in scope, for example Extraverts are Sociable, Assertive, and have a large amount of energy for daily tasks (Activity). Personality traits are approximately 50% genetically determined, which links back to the evolutionary argument detailed above in which much of the way we act today is influenced by our genetic heritage. The remaining variance in personality traits is due to the way in which we are socialised, and the way in which we are brought up by are parents is an important influence here. To find out more about personality traits or test you're own personality visit the links section.

 

Hans Eysenck (1916-1997)

Eysenck worked prolifically for over 50 years using clinical and experimental evidence to determine the main dimensions of personality, and his "Big Three" model of personality is still used extensively today.

 

So how do personality traits help us to understand risk taking behaviour? Basically we can examine whether these dimensions of personality help us to predict risk taking behaviours, and if so construct a psychological profile of risk taking. A large body of research suggests that risk takers tend to be higher in the narrow "Sensation Seeking" trait, a small element of the broader Psychoticism vs. Humaneness trait. Marvin Zuckerman initially developed the theory of Sensation Seeking in the 1950s following a series of sensory deprivation experiments. He began to suspect that the people who volunteered for these experiments might share a similar set of personality characteristics. These individuals appeared to be especially venturesome and inquisitive, eager to have new and exciting experiences even if they did contain a degree of social or physical risk. A large number of studies have shown that people who engage in a range of high risk behaviours tend to be high Sensation Seekers, which quickly leads to the hypothesis that people take risks in order to have exciting, novel and intense new experiences. Studies involving identical twins that are reared apart suggest that a large proportion of Sensation Seeking is genetically determined (approximately 60%), and exciting new studies have begun to identify the specific genes that regulate this need. On average men tend to be higher in Sensation Seeking than women, and Sensation Seeking also tends to decline with age. This goes some way to explain why many people who take potentially fatal risks are young men. However it should be remembered that many women are high Sensation Seekers, and an increasing number of women participate in high risk sports and take health risks such as smoking and binge drinking.

 

Marvin Zuckerman, University of Delaware

Zuckerman developed the theory of Sensation Seeking and is an influential figure in the field of risk taking psychology.

 

Zuckerman proposes that there are four sub-dimensions to the Sensation Seeking trait: (1.) "Thrill and Adventure Seeking" which relates to the willingness to take physical risks and participate in high risk sports, (2.) "Experience Seeking" which relates to the need for new and exciting experiences and is associated with all types of risk taking, (3.) "Disinhibition" which relates to a willingness to take social risks and engage in health risk behaviours (e.g. binge drinking or unprotected sex), and (4.) "Boredom Susceptibility" which relates to an intolerance for monotony. There is good evidence for the validity of each of these Sensation Seeking sub-dimensions with the exception of Boredom Susceptibility, which is best discounted in my opinion. The fact that different types of risk taking are both associated with the Experience Seeking sub-dimension therefore adds weight to the argument that different types of risk taking may all be associated with a universal "risk taking personality".

 

The structure of the Sensation Seeking personality trait, including valid sub-dimensions (also known as facets)

 

Although the Sensation Seeking trait is now widely accepted as an influence on risk taking behaviour, psychologists have also begun to consider its limitations. For example, do other personality traits also influence risk taking? Do some risk takers underestimate the risks involved? What do people do if they lack the opportunity to participate in certain types of risk taking? Why do some people take risks in certain areas of their lives and not others? Fascinating new discoveries have been made due to theoretical and methodological advances, and it is now clear that the notion of a universal risk taking personality may be fundamentally flawed. Indeed, recent research reveals that health risk taking (e.g. drug use) and the participation in high risk sports (e.g. paragliding) are associated with very different psychological profiles. The main differences being that health risk takers are more willing to take social risks, and may underestimate the risks involved. In comparison sporting risk takers are more Emotionally stable and less Neurotic (a broad personality trait), and are confident that they can manage the risks involved.

 

Conclusions