Risk

For other uses, see Risk (disambiguation).

Firefighters are exposed to risks of fire and building collapse during their work.

Risk is the possibility of something bad happening,^[1] comprising a level of uncertainty about the effects and implications of an activity, particularly negative and undesirable consequences.^[2][3]

Harbor sign warning visitors that use of the walkway is "at your own risk"

Risk theory, assessment, and management are applied but substantially differ in different practice areas, such as business, economics, environment, finance, information technology, health, insurance, safety, security, and privacy. The international standard for risk management, ISO 31000, provides general guidelines and principles on managing risks faced by organizations.^[4]

Artist's impression of a major asteroid impact, an example of a global catastrophic risk.

Definition

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) cites the earliest use of the word in English (in the spelling of risque from its French original, 'risque') as of 1621, and the spelling as risk from 1655. While including several other definitions, the OED 3rd edition defines risk as "(Exposure to) the possibility of loss, injury, or other adverse or unwelcome circumstance; a chance or situation involving such a possibility".^[5] The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines risk as "the possibility of something bad happening".^[1] Some have argued that the definition of risk is subjective and context-specific.^[2][6] The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 31073 defines risk as:^[7][8]

effect of uncertainty^[9] on objectives^[10]

Note 1: An effect is a deviation from the expected. It can be positive, negative or both, and can address, create or result in opportunities and threats.^[11]

Note 2: Objectives can have different aspects and categories, and can be applied at different levels.

Note 3: Risk is usually expressed in terms of risk sources, potential events, their consequences and their likelihood.

Other general definitions include:

• "Source of harm". The earliest use of the word "risk" was as a synonym for the much older word "hazard", meaning a potential source of harm. This definition comes from Blount's "Glossographia" (1661)^[12] and was the main definition in the OED 1st (1914) and 2nd (1989) editions. Modern equivalents refer to "unwanted events"^[13] or "something bad that might happen".^[1]
• "Chance of harm". This definition comes from Johnson's "Dictionary of the English Language" (1755), and has been widely paraphrased, including "possibility of loss"^[5] or "probability of unwanted events".^[13]
• "Uncertain events affecting objectives". This definition was adopted by the Association for Project Management (1997).^[14][15] With slight rewording it became the definition in ISO Guide 73.^[3]
• "Uncertainty of outcome". This definition was adopted by the UK Cabinet Office (2002)^[16] to encourage innovation to improve public services. It allowed "risk" to describe either "positive opportunity or negative threat of actions and events".
• "Potential returns from an event ['a thing that happens or takes place'], where the returns are any changes, effects, consequences, and so on, of the event". This definition from Newsome (2014) expands the neutrality of 'risk' akin to the UK Cabinet Office (2002) and Knight (1921).^[17]
• "Human interaction with uncertainty". This definition comes from Cline (2015) in the context of adventure education.^[18]

Versus uncertainty

In his seminal 1921 work Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Frank Knight established the distinction between risk and uncertainty.

... Uncertainty must be taken in a sense radically distinct from the familiar notion of Risk, from which it has never been properly separated. The term "risk," as loosely used in everyday speech and in economic discussion, really covers two things which, functionally at least, in their causal relations to the phenomena of economic organization, are categorically different. ... The essential fact is that "risk" means in some cases a quantity susceptible of measurement, while at other times it is something distinctly not of this character; and there are far-reaching and crucial differences in the bearings of the phenomenon depending on which of the two is really present and operating. ... It will appear that a measurable uncertainty, or "risk" proper, as we shall use the term, is so far different from an unmeasurable one that it is not in effect an uncertainty at all. We ... accordingly restrict the term "uncertainty" to cases of the non-quantitive type.^[19]

Thus, Knightian uncertainty is immeasurable, not possible to calculate, while in the Knightian sense risk is measurable.

By field

Definitions of risk

Field	Definition	Sources	Related concepts
Economics	Uncertainty about loss	Willett's "Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance" (1901).[20]
Insurance	Measurable uncertainty	Knight's "Risk, Uncertainty and Profit" (1921).[21][22][23]	Knightian uncertainty, mortality risk, longevity risk, interest rate risk
	Possibility of an event occurring which causes injury or loss	Lloyd's.[24]
Finance	Volatility of return	Markovitz's "Portfolio Selection" (1952).[25][26]	Financial risk management, Risk aversion
			Components: Downside risk, Upside risk, Inherent risk, Benefit risk
			Business risks: Enterprise risk management, Audit risk, Process risk, Legal risk, Reputational risk, Peren–Clement index
			Investments: Modern portfolio theory, Value at risk, Hedge
			Types of financial risks: Market risk, Credit risk, Liquidity risk, Operational risk
Decision theory	Statistically expected loss	Wald (1939).[27] Used in planning of Delta Works in 1953.[28] Adopted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1975.[29] Remains widely used.[13]
Bayesian analysis[30]	Scenarios, probabilities and consequences: Consequences and associated uncertainty; likelihood and severity of events	Kaplan & Garrick (1981).[31] Found in ISO Guide 73 Note 4.[3]
Occupational health and safety	Combination of the likelihood and consequence(s) of a specified hazardous event occurring	Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) standard OHSAS 18001, 1999.	Occupational hazard, High reliability organisation, Probabilistic risk assessment, WASH-1400[32]
Cybersecurity	Asset, threat and vulnerability	Threat Analysis Group (2010).[33]	Information security, IT risk management, IT risk
Environment	Chance of harmful effects to human health or to ecological systems	United States Environmental Protection Agency.[34]	Environmental hazards, Environmental issues[35]
Health	Possibility that something will cause harm	Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.[36]	Epidemiology, Risk factors, Health risk assessment, Relative risk, Mortality rate, Loss of life expectancy
Project management	An uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a project's objectives	Project Management Institute.[37][38]	Project risk management
Security	Any event that could result in the compromise of organizational assets i.e. the unauthorized use, loss, damage, disclosure or modification of organizational assets for the profit, personal interest or political interests of individuals, groups or other entities	[39]	Security management

Mathematical

Triplets

Risk is often considered to be a set of triplets^[31][26]

${\displaystyle {\text{R}}=(s_{i},p_{i},x_{i})}$ for i = 1,2,....,N

where:

${\displaystyle s_{i}}$ is a scenario describing a possible event

${\displaystyle p_{i}}$ is the probability of the scenario

${\displaystyle x_{i}}$ is the consequence of the scenario

${\displaystyle N}$ is the number of scenarios chosen to describe the risk

Risks expressed in this way can be shown in a risk register or a risk matrix. They may be quantitative or qualitative, and can include positive as well as negative consequences.^[40]

An updated version recommends the following general description of risk:^[30]

${\displaystyle R=({A,C,U,P,K})}$

where:

${\displaystyle A}$ is an event that might occur

${\displaystyle C}$ is the consequences of the event

${\displaystyle U}$ is an assessment of uncertainties

${\displaystyle P}$ is a knowledge-based probability of the event

${\displaystyle K}$ is the background knowledge that U and P are based on

Probability distributions

If all the consequences are expressed in the same units (or can be converted into a consistent loss function), the risk can be expressed as a probability density function describing the uncertainty about outcome:

${\displaystyle R=p(x)}$

This can also be expressed as a cumulative distribution function (CDF) (or S curve).^[40] One way of highlighting the tail of this distribution is by showing the probability of exceeding given losses, known as a complementary cumulative distribution function, plotted on logarithmic scales. For example, frequency-number diagrams show the annual frequency of exceeding given numbers of fatalities.^[40] Another way of summarizing the size of the distribution's tail is the loss with a certain probability of exceedance, that is, the value at risk.

Expected values

Risk is often measured as the expected value of the loss. This combines the probabilities and consequences into a single value. See also expected utility. The simplest case is a binary possibility of Accident or No accident. The associated formula for calculating risk is then:

${\displaystyle R=({\text{probability of the accident occurring}})\times ({\text{expected loss in case of the accident}})}$

In a situation with several possible accident scenarios, total risk is the sum of the risks for each scenario, provided that the outcomes are comparable:

${\displaystyle R=\sum _{i=1}^{N}p_{i}x_{i}}$

In statistical decision theory, the risk function is defined as the expected value of a given loss function as a function of the decision rule used to make decisions in the face of uncertainty.

A disadvantage of defining risk as the product of impact and probability is that it presumes, unrealistically, that decision-makers are risk-neutral. A risk-neutral person's utility is proportional to the expected value of the payoff. For example, a risk-neutral person would consider 20% chance of winning $1 million exactly as desirable as getting a certain $200,000. However, most decision-makers are not actually risk-neutral and would not consider these equivalent choices.^[26] Pascal's mugging is a philosophical thought experiment that demonstrates issues in assessing risk solely by the expected value of loss or return.

Outcome frequencies

Risks of discrete events such as accidents are often measured as outcome frequencies, or expected rates of specific loss events per unit time. When small, frequencies are numerically similar to probabilities, but have dimensions of ⁠1/t⁠ and can sum to more than 1. Typical outcomes expressed this way include:^[41]

• Individual risk - the frequency of a given level of harm to an individual.^[42] It often refers to the expected annual probability of death, and is then comparable to the mortality rate.
• Group (or societal risk) – the relationship between the frequency and the number of people suffering harm.^[42]
• Frequencies of property damage or total loss.
• Frequencies of environmental damage such as oil spills.

Financial risk

In finance, volatility is the degree of variation of a trading price over time, usually measured by the standard deviation of logarithmic returns. Modern portfolio theory measures risk using the variance (or standard deviation) of asset prices. The risk is then:

${\displaystyle R=\sigma }$

The beta coefficient measures the volatility of an individual asset to overall market changes. This is the asset's contribution to systematic risk, which cannot be eliminated by portfolio diversification. It is the covariance between the asset's return r_i and the market return r_m, expressed as a fraction of the market variance:^[43]

${\displaystyle \beta _{i}={\frac {\sigma _{im}}{\sigma _{m}^{2}}}={\frac {\mathrm {Cov} (r_{i},r_{m})}{\mathrm {Var} (r_{m})}}}$

Risk-neutral measure

In mathematical finance, a risk-neutral measure is a probability measure such that each share price is exactly equal to the discounted expectation of the share price under the measure. This is heavily used in the pricing of financial derivatives due to the fundamental theorem of asset pricing.

Let ${\displaystyle S}$ be a d-dimensional market representing the price processes of the risky assets, ${\displaystyle B}$ the risk-free bond and ${\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {F}},P)}$the underlying probability space. Then a measure ${\displaystyle Q}$ is a risk-neutral measure if

1. ${\displaystyle Q\approx P}$, i.e., ${\displaystyle Q}$ is equivalent to ${\displaystyle P}$,
2. the processes ${\displaystyle \left({\frac {S_{t}^{i}}{B_{t}}}\right)_{t}}$ are (local) martingales w.r.t. ${\displaystyle Q}$ ${\displaystyle \forall \,i=1,\dots ,d}$.^[44]

Mandelbrot's mild and wild theory

Benoit Mandelbrot distinguished between "mild" and "wild" risk and argued that risk assessment and analysis must be fundamentally different for the two types of risk.^[45] Mild risk follows normal or near-normal probability distributions, is subject to regression to the mean and the law of large numbers, and is therefore relatively predictable. Wild risk follows fat-tailed distributions, e.g., Pareto or power-law distributions, is subject to regression to the tail (infinite mean or variance, rendering the law of large numbers invalid or ineffective), and is therefore difficult or impossible to predict. A common error in risk assessment and analysis is to underestimate the wildness of risk, assuming risk to be mild when in fact it is wild, which must be avoided if risk assessment and analysis are to be valid and reliable, according to Mandelbrot.

Estimation

• Proxy or analogue data from other contexts, presumed to be similar in some aspects of risk.
• Theoretical models, such as Monte Carlo simulation and Quantitative risk assessment software.
• Logical models, such as Bayesian networks, fault tree analysis and event tree analysis
• Expert judgement, such as absolute probability judgement or the Delphi method.

Management

Risk management is the set of actions that organisations take to avoid and mitigate downside risks,^[46][3] taking into account factors such as the possibility of upside risk opportunities,^[47] innovation,^[48] the environment, safety,^[49] scientific evidence, culture, politics, and law.^[46] Risk management operates at the strategic, operational, and individual level,^[4] and may form part of an overarching governance, risk, and compliance strategy. It comprises the assessment of risk as regards an organisation's objectives and strategies, as well as risk mitigation options, such as risk transformation, risk transfer, risk avoidance, risk reduction, and risk retention.^[50]

Assessment

Risk assessment is a systematic approach to recognising and characterising risks, and evaluating their significance, in order to support decisions about how to manage them. ISO 31000 defines it in terms of its components as "the overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation":^[4]

• Risk identification is "the process of finding, recognizing and recording risks". It "involves the identification of risk sources, events, their causes and their potential consequences."^[3] ISO 31000 describes it as the first step in a risk assessment process, preceding risk analysis and risk evaluation.^[4] In safety contexts, where risk sources are known as hazards, this step is known as "hazard identification".^[51]
• The ISO defines risk analysis as "the process to comprehend the nature of risk and to determine the level of risk".^[3] In the ISO 31000 risk assessment process, risk analysis follows risk identification and precedes risk evaluation.^[40] Risk analysis often uses data on the probabilities and consequences of previous events.
• Risk evaluation involves comparing estimated levels of risk against risk criteria to determine the significance of the risk and make decisions about risk treatment actions.^[40] In most activities, risks can be reduced by adding further controls or other treatment options, but typically this increases cost or inconvenience. It is rarely possible to eliminate risks altogether without discontinuing the activity. Sometimes it is desirable to increase risks to secure valued benefits. Risk criteria are intended to guide decisions on these issues.^[52]

For example, the tolerability of risk framework, developed by the UK Health and Safety Executive, divides risks into three bands:^[53]

• Unacceptable risks – only permitted in exceptional circumstances.
• Tolerable risks – to be kept as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), taking into account the costs and benefits of further risk reduction.
• Broadly acceptable risks – not normally requiring further reduction.

Attitude, appetite and tolerance

The terms risk appetite, attitude, and tolerance are often used similarly to describe an organisation's or individual's attitude towards risk-taking. One's attitude may be described as risk-averse, risk-neutral, or risk-seeking.^[54]

Mitigation

• Risk transformation describes the process of not only mitigating risks but also employing risk factors into advantages.^[55]
• Risk transfer is the shifting of risks from one party to another, typically an insurer.^[56]

Psychology of risk

Risk perception

Risk perception is the subjective judgement that people make about the characteristics and severity of a risk. At its most basic, the perception of risk is an intuitive form of risk analysis.^[57]

Adults have an intuitive understanding of risk, which may not be exclusive to humans.^[58] Many ancient societies believed in divinely determined fates, and attempts to influence the gods can be seen as early forms of risk management. Early uses of the word 'risk' coincided with an erosion of belief in divinely ordained fate.^[59] Notwithstanding, intuitive perceptions of risk are often inaccurate owing to reliance on psychological heuristics, which are subject to systematic cognitive biases.^[60] In particular, the accuracy of risk perception can be adversely affected by the affect heuristic, which relies on emotion to make decisions.^[61][62]

The availability heuristic is the process of judging the probability of an event by the ease with which instances come to mind. In general, rare but dramatic causes of death are over-estimated while common unspectacular causes are under-estimated;^[63] an "availability cascade" is a self-reinforcing cycle in which public concern about relatively minor events is amplified by media coverage until the issue becomes politically important.^[64] Despite the difficulty of thinking statistically, people are typically subject to the overconfidence effect in their judgements, tending to overestimate their understanding of the world and underestimate the role of chance,^[65] with even experts subject to this effect.^[66] Other biases that affect the perception of risk include ambiguity aversion.

Paul Slovic's "psychometric paradigm" assumes that risk is subjectively defined by individuals, influenced by factors such as lack of control, catastrophic potential, and severity of consequences, such that risk perception can be psychometrically measured by surveys.^[67][68][69] Slovic argues that intuitive emotional reactions are the predominant method by which humans evaluate risk, and that a purely statistical approach to disasters lacks emotion and thus fails to convey the true meaning of disasters and fails to motivate proper action to prevent them.^[70] This theory has received support from retrospective studies and evolutionary psychology.^{[71][72][73][74][75][76]} Hazards with high perceived risk are therefore, in general, seen as less acceptable and more in need of reduction.^[77]

Cultural theory of risk views risk perception as a collective phenomenon by which different cultures select some risks for attention and ignore others, with the aim of maintaining their particular way of life.^[78] Hence risk perception varies according to the preoccupations of the culture. The theory outlines two categories, the degree of binding to social groups, the degree of social regulation.^[79] Cultural theory can be used to explain why it can be difficult for people with different world-views to agree about whether a hazard is acceptable, and why risk assessments may be more persuasive for some people than others. However, there is little quantitative evidence that shows cultural biases are strongly predictive of risk perception.^[80]

Decision theory

Main articles: Decision theory and Prospect theory

In decision theory, regret (and anticipation of regret) can play a significant part in decision-making, distinct from risk aversion.^[81][82] Framing is also a fundamental problem with all forms of risk assessment.^[83] In particular, because of bounded rationality, the risk of extreme events is discounted because the probability is too low to evaluate intuitively. As an example, one of the leading causes of death is road accidents caused by drunk driving – partly because any given driver frames the problem by largely or totally ignoring the risk of a serious or fatal accident. The right prefrontal cortex has been shown to take a more global perspective,^[84] while greater left prefrontal activity relates to local or focal processing.^[85][86][87] Reference class forecasting is a forecasting method by which biases associated with risks can be mitigated.

Risk taking

Psychologists have run randomised experiments with a treatment and control group to ascertain the effect of different psychological factors that may be associated with risk taking,^[88] finding that positive and negative feedback about past risk taking can affect future risk taking. For example, one experiment showed that belief in competence correlated with risk-taking behavior.^[89] Risk compensation is a theory that suggests that people typically adjust their behavior in response to the perceived level of risk, becoming more careful where they sense greater risk and less careful if they feel more protected.^[90] People also show risk aversion, such that they reject fair risky offers because of the perception of loss.^[91][92] Further, intuitive responses have been found to be less risk-averse than subsequent reflective response.^[93]

Sex differences

This section is an excerpt from Sex differences in humans § Financial risk-taking.[edit]

Sex differences in financial decision making are relevant and significant. Numerous studies have found that women tend to be financially more risk-averse than men and hold safer portfolios.^[94][95] Scholarly research has documented systematic differences in financial decisions such as buying investments versus insurance, donating to ingroups versus outgroups (such as terrorism victims in Iraq versus the United States), spending in stores,^[96] and the endowment effect-or asking price for goods people have.^[97]

Society and culture

Risk and autonomy

The experience of many people who rely on human services for support is that 'risk' is often used as a reason to prevent them from gaining further independence or fully accessing the community, and that these services are often unnecessarily risk averse.^[98] "People's autonomy used to be compromised by institution walls, now it's too often our risk management practices", according to John O'Brien.^[99] Michael Fischer and Ewan Ferlie (2013) find that contradictions between formal risk controls and the role of subjective factors in human services (such as the role of emotions and ideology) can undermine service values, so producing tensions and even intractable and 'heated' conflict.^[100]

Risk society

Main article: Risk society

Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck argued that whilst humans have always been subjected to a level of risk – such as natural disasters – these have usually been perceived as produced by non-human forces. Modern societies, however, are exposed to risks such as pollution, that are the result of the modernization process itself. Giddens defines these two types of risks as external risks and manufactured risks.^[101] The term Risk society was coined in the 1980s and its popularity during the 1990s was both as a consequence of its links to trends in thinking about wider modernity, and also to its links to popular discourse, in particular the growing environmental concerns during the period.

See also

• Ambiguity aversion
• Benefit shortfall
• Civil defence
• Countermeasure
• Early case assessment
• Event chain methodology
• Fuel price risk management
• Identity resolution
• Information assurance
• ISO/PAS 28000
• Life-critical system
• Preventive maintenance
• Reliability engineering
• Peltzman effect

References

1. "Risk". Cambridge Dictionary.
2. "Glossary" (PDF). Society for Risk Analysis. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
3. ISO 31073:2022 — Risk management — Vocabulary.
4. "ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management - Guidelines". ISO.
5. "risk". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
6. Fischhoff, B; Watson, S.R.; Hope, C. (1984). "Defining Risk". Policy Sciences. 17 (2): 123–139. doi:10.1007/BF00146924. S2CID 189827147.
7. ISO 31073:2022 — Risk management — Vocabulary — risk.
8. ISO/IEC Guide 73:2002 — Risk management — Vocabulary — Guidelines.

9. state, even partial, of deficiency of information related to understanding or knowledge

   Note 1: In some cases, uncertainty can be related to the organization’s context as well as to its objectives. Note 2: Uncertainty is the root source of risk, namely any kind of “deficiency of information” that matters in relation to objectives (and objectives, in turn, relate to all relevant interested parties’ needs and expectations).

   ISO 31073:2022 — Risk management — Vocabulary — uncertainty.

10. result to be achieved

    Note 1: An objective can be strategic, tactical or operational. Note 2: Objectives can relate to different disciplines (such as financial, health and safety, and environmental goals) and can apply at different levels (such as strategic, organization-wide, project, product and process). Note 3: An objective can be expressed in other ways, e.g. as an intended outcome, a purpose, an operational criterion, as a management system objective, or by the use of other words with similar meaning (e.g. aim, goal, target).

    ISO 31073:2022 — Risk management — Vocabulary — objective.

11. potential source of danger, harm, or other undesirable outcome

    Note 1: A threat is a negative situation in which loss is likely and over which one has relatively little control.

    Note 2: A threat to one party may pose an opportunity to another.

    ISO 31073:2022 — Risk management — Vocabulary — threat.
12. Blount, Thomas (1661). Glossographia, or, A dictionary interpreting all such hard words of whatsoever language now used in our refined English tongue. London.
13. Hansson, Sven Ove, "Risk", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
14. Project Risk Analysis and Management Guide. Association of Project Management. 1997.
15. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (4th Edition) ANSI/PMI 99-001-2008
16. Risk: Improving government's capability to handle risk and uncertainty (PDF). Cabinet Office Strategy Unit. 2002.
17. Newsome, Bruce (2013). A Practical Introduction to Security and Risk Management. SAGE Publications. ISBN 1483313409.
18. Cline, Preston B. (3 March 2015). "The Merging of Risk Analysis and Adventure Education" (PDF). Wilderness Risk Management. 5 (1): 43–45. Retrieved 12 December 2016.
19. Frank Hyneman Knight "Risk, uncertainty and profit" pg. 19, Hart, Schaffner, and Marx Prize Essays, no. 31. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin. 1921.
20. Willett, Allan (1901). Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. Columbia University Press. p. 6.
21. Knight, Frank (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company.
22. Masci, Pietro (Spring 2011). "The History of Insurance: Risk, Uncertainty and Entrepreneurship". Journal of the Washington Institute of China Studies. 5 (3): 25–68. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
23. Carson, James M.; Elyasiani, Elyas; Mansur, Iqbal (2008). "Market Risk, Interest Rate Risk, and Interdependencies in Insurer Stock Returns: A System-GARCH Model". The Journal of Risk and Insurance. 75 (4): 873–891. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.568.4087. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6975.2008.00289.x. S2CID 154871203.
24. "Glossary and acronyms". Lloyd's. Retrieved 29 April 2020.
25. Markovitz, H. (March 1952). "Portfolio Selection". The Journal of Finance. 7 (1): 77–91.
26. Hubbard, Douglas (4 March 2020). The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781119522034.
27. Wald, A (1939). "Contributions to the Theory of Statistical Estimation and Testing Hypotheses". Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 10 (4): 299–326. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177732144.
28. Wired Magazine, Before the levees break, page 3.
29. Rasmussen (1975). An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
30. Aven, Terje (2011). Quantitative Risk Assessment – The Scientific Platform. Cambridge University Press.
31. Kaplan, S.; Garrick, B.J. (1981). "On the Quantitative Definition of Risk". Risk Analysis. 1 (1): 11–27. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x.
32. Ranking of Risks for Existing and New Building Works, Sustainability 2019, 11(10), 2863, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102863
33. "Threat, vulnerability, risk – commonly mixed up terms". Threat Analysis Group. 3 May 2010. Retrieved 31 October 2020.
34. "About risk assessment". US Environmental Protection Agency. 3 December 2013.
35. Gurjar, Bhola Ram; Mohan, Manju (2002). "Environmental Risk Analysis: Problems and Perspectives in Different Countries". Risk: Health, Safety & Environment. 13: 3. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
36. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/land-reuse-health-program/media/pdfs/risk_assessment-508.pdf
37. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (5th ed.). Project Management Institute. 2013. p. 309.
38. Boroomand, A. and Smaldino, P.E., 2021. Hard Work, Risk-Taking, and Diversity in a Model of Collective Problem Solving. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 24(4).
39. Julian Talbot and Miles Jakeman Security Risk Management Body of Knowledge, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
40. "IEC 31010:2019 Risk management — Risk assessment techniques". ISO. July 2019. Retrieved 29 October 2020.
41. A Guide to Quantitative Risk Assessment for Offshore Installations. Centre of Marine and Petroleum Technology. 1999. pp. 136–145.
42. Jones, David (1992). Nomenclature for Hazard and Risk Assessment (2nd ed.). Institution of Chemical Engineers.
43. Brealey, R.A.; Myers, S.C.; Allen, F. (2017). Principles of Corporate Finance (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 183.
44. Björk, Tomas (2004). Arbitrage theory in Continuous Time. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 136f. ISBN 978-0-19-927126-9.
45. Mandelbrot, Benoit and Richard L. Hudson (2008). The (mis)Behaviour of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin and Reward. London: Profile Books. ISBN 978-1-84668-262-9.
46. Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. 1997.
47. AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk Management. Standards Australia & Standards New Zealand. 1999.
48. Risk: Improving government's capability to handle risk and uncertainty. Cabinet Office. 2002.
49. "Risk management". Process Safety Glossary. Center for Chemical Process Safety. Retrieved 29 October 2020.
50. Baldzhy, Maryna (25 December 2023). "Risk Management Strategies in the Global Business Environment: Analysis of Complex Dependencies and Effectiveness of Measures" (PDF). Economic Affairs. 68 (4). doi:10.46852/0424-2513.4.2023.20.
51. Lyon, Bruce (2016). Fundamental Techniques. In Popov G, Lyon BK, Hollcraft B (eds.). Risk Assessment: A Practical Guide to Assessing Operational Risks: John Wiley & Sons.
52. Harmonised Risk Acceptance Criteria for Transport of Dangerous Goods (PDF). European Commission. 2014.
53. The Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations (PDF) (2nd ed.). Health and Safety Executive. 1992.
54. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Health and the Savings of Insured versus Uninsured, Working-Age Households in the U.S., November 2009
55. deloitteeditor. "Risk Transformation: Understanding the Role of Data, Analytics and Technology". deloitte.wsj.com. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
56. "Definition: Risk transfer | UNDRR". www.undrr.org. 23 January 2009. Retrieved 19 September 2025.
57. Breakwell, Glynis (2014). The Psychology of Risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 35.
58. Dugatkin, Lee (2013). "The Evolution of Risk-Taking". Cerebrum. 2013: 1. PMC 3600861. PMID 23516663.
59. Breakwell, Glynis (2014). The Psychology of Risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 2.
60. Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1974). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases". Science. 185 (4157): 1124–1131. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457. S2CID 6196452.
61. Breakwell, Glynis (2014). The Psychology of Risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 142.
62. Breakwell, Glynis (2014). The Psychology of Risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 138.
63. Slovic, Paul (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan. p. 107.
64. Kuran, Timur; Sunstein, Cass (2007). "Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation". Stanford Law Review. 51 (4): 683–768. doi:10.2307/1229439. JSTOR 1229439. S2CID 3941373.
65. Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books. pp. 10–14.
66. Slovic, Paul; Fischhoff, Baruch; Lichtenstein, Sarah (1979). "Rating the Risks". Environment. 2 (3): 14–20.
67. Gigerenzer G (2004) Dread risk, 11 September, and fatal traffic accidents. Psych Sci 15:286−287.
68. Slovic, Paul (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan. p. xxiii.
69. Slovic, P (1987). "Perception of risk". Science. 236 (4799): 280–285. Bibcode:1987Sci...236..280S. doi:10.1126/science.3563507. PMID 3563507.
70. Slovic, Paul (2010). The Feeling of Risk. Routledge.
71. Öhman, A; Mineka, S (2001). "Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning". Psychol Rev. 108 (3): 483–522. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.483. PMID 11488376.
72. Gaissmaier, W.; Gigerenzer, G. (2012). "9/11, Act II: A fine-grained analysis of regional variations in traffic fatalities in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks". Psychological Science. 23 (12): 1449–1454. doi:10.1177/0956797612447804. hdl:11858/00-001M-0000-0024-EF79-3. PMID 23160203. S2CID 3164450.
73. Lichtenstein, S; Slovic, P; Fischhoff, B; Layman, M; Combs, B (1978). "Judged frequency of lethal events". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 4 (6): 551–578. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.6.551. hdl:1794/22549.
74. Bodemer, N.; Ruggeri, A.; Galesic, M. (2013). "When dread risks are more dreadful than continuous risks: Comparing cumulative population losses over time". PLOS ONE. 8 (6): e66544. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...866544B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066544. PMC 3694073. PMID 23840503.
75. Hill, KR; Walker, RS; Bozicevic, M; Eder, J; Headland, T; et al. (2011). "Co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies show unique human social structure". Science. 331 (6022): 1286–1289. Bibcode:2011Sci...331.1286H. doi:10.1126/science.1199071. PMID 21393537. S2CID 93958.
76. Wang, XT (1996). "Evolutionary hypotheses of risk-sensitive choice: Age differences and perspective change". Ethol Sociobiol. 17: 1–15. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.201.816. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(95)00103-4.
77. Slovic, Paul (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan. pp. 137–146.
78. Douglas, Mary; Wildavsky, Aaron (1982). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
79. "A short summary of grid-group cultural theory". Four Cultures. 10 March 2010. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
80. Breakwell, Glynis (2014). The Psychology of Risk (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 82.
81. Virine, L., & Trumper, M. ProjectThink. Gower. 2013
82. Virine, L., & Trumper, M. Project Risk Analysis Made Ridiculously Simple. World Scientific Publishing. 2017
83. Amos Tversky / Daniel Kahneman, 1981. "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice."^{[verification needed]}
84. Schatz, J.; Craft, S.; Koby, M.; DeBaun, M. R. (2004). "Asymmetries in visual-spatial processing following childhood stroke". Neuropsychology. 18 (2): 340–352. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.18.2.340. PMID 15099156.
85. Volberg, G.; Hubner, R. (2004). "On the role of response conflicts and stimulus position for hemispheric differences in global/local processing: An ERP study". Neuropsychologia (Submitted manuscript). 42 (13): 1805–1813. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.04.017. PMID 15351629. S2CID 9810481.
86. Drake, R. A. (2004). Selective potentiation of proximal processes: Neurobiological mechanisms for spread of activation. Medical Science Monitor, 10, 231–234.
87. McElroy, T.; Seta, J. J. (2004). "On the other hand, am I rational? Hemisphere activation and the framing effect" (PDF). Brain and Cognition. 55 (3): 572–580. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.04.002. PMID 15223204. S2CID 9949183.
88. Cerf, Moran (4 October 2022). "Risk Assessment Under Perceptual Ambiguity and its impact on category learning". PsyArXiv. doi:10.31234/osf.io/uyn4q. S2CID 221756622.
89. Krueger, Jr., Norris; Dickson, Peter R. (May 1994). "How Believing in Ourselves Increases Risk Taking: Perceived Self-Efficacy and Opportunity Recognition". Decision Sciences. 25 (3): 385–400. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1994.tb00810.x. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
90. Masson, Maxime; Lamoureux, Julie; de Guise, Elaine (October 2019). "Self-reported risk-taking and sensation-seeking behavior predict helmet wear amongst Canadian ski and snowboard instructors". Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 52 (2): 121–130. doi:10.1037/cbs0000153. S2CID 210359660.
91. Rabin, Matthew (2000). "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem". Econometrica. 68 (5): 1281–1292. doi:10.2307/2999450.
92. Holt, C. A.; Laury, S. K. (2002). "Risk aversion and incentive effects". American Economic Review. 92 (5): 1644–1655. doi:10.1257/000282802762024700.
93. Voudouri, A.; Białek, M.; De Neys, W. (2024). "Fast & slow decisions under risk: Intuition rather than deliberation drives advantageous choices". Cognition. 250: 105837. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105837.
94. Bajtelsmit, Vickie L; Bernasek, Alexandra (1996). "Why Do Women Invest Differently Than Men?". Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning. 7: 1–10.
95. Adhikari, Binay K; O'Leary, Virginia E (2011). "Gender Differences in Risk Aversion: A Developing Nation's Case" (PDF). Journal of Personal Finance. 10 (2): 122–147.
96. Kurt, Didem; Inman, J. Jeffrey; Argo, Jennifer J. (2011). "The influence of friends on consumer spending: The role of agency-communion orientation and self-monitoring". Journal of Marketing Research. 48 (4): 741–754. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.4.741. S2CID 143542642.
97. Dommer, Sara Loughran; Swaminathan, Vanitha (2013). "Explaining the endowment effect through ownership: The role of identity, gender, and self-threat". Journal of Consumer Research. 39 (5): 1034–1050. doi:10.1086/666737.
98. Neill, M (October 2009). "A positive approach to risk requires person-centred thinking". Tizard Learning Disability Review. 14 (4): 17–24. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.604.3157. doi:10.1108/13595474200900034. Retrieved 8 October 2022.
99. John O'Brien cited in Sanderson, H. Lewis, J. A Practical Guide to Delivering Personalisation; Person Centred Practice in Health and Social Care p211
100. Fischer, Michael Daniel; Ferlie, Ewan (1 January 2013). "Resisting hybridisation between modes of clinical risk management: Contradiction, contest, and the production of intractable conflict" (PDF). Accounting, Organizations and Society. 38 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2012.11.002. S2CID 44146410. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 July 2019. Retrieved 19 September 2019.
101. Beck, Ulrich (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. Theory, culture & society. London; Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-0-8039-8345-8.

Bibliography

Referred literature

• James Franklin, 2001: The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• John Handmer; Paul James (2005). "Trust Us and Be Scared: The Changing Nature of Risk". Global Society. 21 (1): 119–30.
• Niklas Luhmann, 1996: Modern Society Shocked by its Risks (= University of Hong Kong, Department of Sociology Occasional Papers 17), Hong Kong, available via HKU Scholars HUB

Books

• Historian David A. Moss' book When All Else Fails explains the US government's historical role as risk manager of last resort.
• Bernstein P. L. Against the Gods ISBN 0-471-29563-9. Risk explained and its appreciation by man traced from earliest times through all the major figures of their ages in mathematical circles.
• Rescher, Nicholas (1983). A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Measurement. University Press of America.
• Porteous, Bruce T.; Pradip Tapadar (December 2005). Economic Capital and Financial Risk Management for Financial Services Firms and Conglomerates. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-3608-0.
• Tom Kendrick (2003). Identifying and Managing Project Risk: Essential Tools for Failure-Proofing Your Project. AMACOM/American Management Association. ISBN 978-0-8144-0761-5.
• Hillson D. (2007). Practical Project Risk Management: The Atom Methodology. Management Concepts. ISBN 978-1-56726-202-5.
• Kim Heldman (2005). Project Manager's Spotlight on Risk Management. Jossey-Bass. ISBN 978-0-7821-4411-6.
• Dirk Proske (2008). Catalogue of risks – Natural, Technical, Social and Health Risks. Springer. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...18E. doi:10.1029/2009EO020009. ISBN 978-3-540-79554-4.
• Gardner D. Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear, Random House Inc. (2008) ISBN 0-7710-3299-4.
• Novak S.Y. Extreme value methods with applications to finance. London: CRC. (2011) ISBN 978-1-43983-574-6.
• Hopkin P. Fundamentals of Risk Management. 2nd Edition. Kogan-Page (2012) ISBN 978-0-7494-6539-1

Articles and papers

• Cevolini, A (2015). ""Tempo e decisione. Perché Aristotele non-ha un concetto di rischio?" PDF". Divus Thomas. 118 (1): 221–249.
• Clark, L.; Manes, F.; Antoun, N.; Sahakian, B. J.; Robbins, T. W. (2003). "The contributions of lesion laterality and lesion volume to decision-making impairment following frontal lobe damage". Neuropsychologia. 41 (11): 1474–1483. doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(03)00081-2. PMID 12849765. S2CID 46447795.
• Cokely, E. T.; Galesic, M.; Schulz, E.; Ghazal, S.; Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). "Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test" (PDF). Judgment and Decision Making. 7: 25–47. doi:10.1017/S1930297500001819. S2CID 11617465.
• Drake, R. A. (1985). "Decision making and risk taking: Neurological manipulation with a proposed consistency mediation". Contemporary Social Psychology. 11: 149–152.
• Drake, R. A. (1985). "Lateral asymmetry of risky recommendations". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 11 (4): 409–417. doi:10.1177/0146167285114007. S2CID 143899523.
• Gregory, Kent J.; Bibbo, Giovanni; Pattison, John E. (2005). "A Standard Approach to Measurement Uncertainties for Scientists and Engineers in Medicine". Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 28 (2): 131–139. doi:10.1007/bf03178705. PMID 16060321. S2CID 13018991.
• Hansson, Sven Ove. (2007). "Risk", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2007 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming [1].
• Holton, Glyn A. (2004). "Defining Risk", Financial Analysts Journal, 60 (6), 19–25. A paper exploring the foundations of risk. (PDF file).
• Knight, F. H. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Chicago: Houghton Mifflin Company. (Cited at: [2], § I.I.26.).
• Kruger, Daniel J., Wang, X.T., & Wilke, Andreas (2007) "Towards the development of an evolutionarily valid domain-specific risk-taking scale" Evolutionary Psychology (PDF file).
• Metzner-Szigeth, Andreas (2009). "Contradictory approaches? On realism and constructivism in the social sciences research on risk, technology and the environment" (PDF). Futures. 41 (3): 156–170. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.09.017.
• Miller, L (1985). "Cognitive risk taking after frontal or temporal lobectomy I. The synthesis of fragmented visual information". Neuropsychologia. 23 (3): 359–369. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(85)90022-3. PMID 4022303. S2CID 45154180.
• Miller, L.; Milner, B. (1985). "Cognitive risk taking after frontal or temporal lobectomy II. The synthesis of phonemic and semantic information". Neuropsychologia. 23 (3): 371–379. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(85)90023-5. PMID 4022304. S2CID 31082509.
• Neill, M. Allen, J. Woodhead, N. Reid, S. Irwin, L. Sanderson, H. 2008 "A Positive Approach to Risk Requires Person Centred Thinking" London, CSIP Personalisation Network, Department of Health. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20090218231745/http://networks.csip.org.uk/Personalisation/Topics/Browse/Risk/ [Accessed 21 July 2008].
• Wildavsky, Aaron; Wildavsky, Adam (2008). "Risk and Safety". In David R. Henderson (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Library of Economics and Liberty. ISBN 978-0-86597-665-8. OCLC 237794267.

External links

• Risk – The entry of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy