Perceived Risk
Is there a difference between ‘risk’ and ‘perceived risk’? Cater (2006) suggests that while real risks are quantifiable and statistical in nature, perceived risks are more emotive and “profoundly qualitative”. Cater found that 94% of a sample of adventure tourists rated the possibility of serious injury as very low or completely non existent, how does this equate to the idea of risk seeking behaviour, and adventurous experience? Individuals’ perceptions of risk are influenced by a complex interaction of a number of factors. Key factors include an individual’s past experiences, media presentations, vicarious experiences and a predisposition to anxiety (Davis-Berman et al, 2002). Davis-Berman also notes that while adventure sports leaders and instructors are trained to become experts in the evaluation of real risk and its management, they receive little or no training in the management of perceived risk and anxiety management.
There are a wide range of methods and factors that can alter levels of perceived risk. These may be looked at in two separate categories, marketing and ‘in the field’ methods. Marketing materials such as websites and brochures are often the first point of contact that a client has with a business, and as such can be a key determinant in the initial levels of perceived risk associated with an activity. The use of images and wording within marketing materials can be used strategically to increase or decrease levels of perceived risk. ‘In the field’ strategies are ones which take place during the activity, and again may be used to either increase or decrease the clients levels of perceived risk. Environmental factors can be skillfully employed by instructors to heighten the thrill factor, and levels or perceived risk, or to calm a nervous customer (by lowering levels or perceived risk).