Citation

Cole GA, Withey SB. Risk Anal. 1982; 2(4): 243-247.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1982, Society for Risk Analysis, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01388.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Models incorporating homeostatic servo-mechanisms are becoming more common in the social, behavioral, and psychological disciplines. This is not difficult to understand. In many areas of theoretical concern the available evidence would suggest the operation of a self-regulating process - the dimensions, as well as the details, of which are poorly understood. In such instances a homeostatic model may emulate the known features of the process to a degree that provides rough predictive power even in the absence of a thorough explication and conceptual refinement. Wilde's model presents itself as just such a "first approximation" for psychological, and perhaps sociological, process involving the perception and evaluation of risk. Despite the fact that it leaves open for resolution theoretical questions of fundamental concern to many psychologists and sociologists, the metaphor of a thermostatically controlled heating system focuses our attention on an area that deserves further study. The model may be taken as a simple, plausible, and appealing device and, view and from that perspective, Wilde's theory has much to recommend it. Acknowledging these limitations in perspective, and accepting them as having circumscribed the grounds for criticism, we would question, however, both the structure of the proposed extensions of this model. The linkage of theoretical concepts at the macro and micro levels is a topic of considerable debate in all of the social sciences numerous issues have yet to be resolved. In view of the pitfalls that confront anyone who chooses to tread in this area, it is not surprising that we should have doubts about the "aggregation" process that is so casually introduced in the initial phases of wild discussion. We feel that in passing from the "individual" level to the "societal" plane Wilde blurs the focus of attention, obscures the status of several key concepts, and thereby, loses track of the unit of an analysis that is implicit at each of the two levels he introduces. We sense that there other points in Wilde's argument that might form the basis for a critical review, but will leave them for others to explore. In the comments here, we shall focus our attention on the topic of aggregation and the questions that it raises.

Language: en