Basejumper.com - archive

Does anyone know the name of the theory that, "the amount of risk a group is willing to accept is directly related to the size of the group?"

Or something close to that. I read an article on it a few years ago and wanted to do a little research on it. Thanx ---Dex

I don't know how valid this theory is in reality today. What with the internet and such bringing people together that have like minded attitudes. I can think of things as risky as BASE jumping that have hundreds of thousands more participants. I can also think of things less risky that youre not likely to find very many people doing. I dont know the theory name though, but I think it would apply to an isolated community with no external influences. Place a thousand people near a mountain, only a handful of them are going to want to climb that mountain as it would be a risky adventure. This definitely isn't worth two cents

The theory might also be applying to something like this:

Say you have 10 people and you tell them 1 of them will get hurt if they do a certain task, would they accept the risk? They say ok, then you say what if 5 people will get hurt? Maybe they say no. But then what if you increase the group size to 1,000,000 and say 5 people will get hurt in this certain activity. 5 people would still be injured, but the group may accept the risk because the group size is so much greater so each individual's chance of getting injured is less. So if you had 2,000,000 people, ten injuries would be acceptable, therefore the size of the group determines how much risk they are willing to take on.

where does BASE jumper then belong?

I belive that 1 BASE jumper=1 group.Its a personal choise..

I know it doesn't sound particularly professional, but this theory is called risky shift. I just finished a thesis on this, but relating to rock climbers and risk perception. Also try looking up optimistic bias, which is the belief that bad things will only happen to those around you, but not you personally.

Hope this helps, if you want more info. PM me and I'll send you a list of authors to look up.

I always thought that "Risk Shifting" was the same as risk homeostasis theory, which basically says that people maintain the same level of risk in their lives--thus, as gear gets safer, we make more dangerous jumps, maintaining the same "overall" level of risk.

More info on risk homeostasis theory can be found on the No Excuses Rigging web page (look under "articles").

Uh oh. . . looks like Tom got himself back to a decent internet connection

Peace,

D-d0g

I think the theory I am referring to is more directly related to percieved risk.

For example; A single person is faced with the prospect of walking alone on a path through a dark forest. He is afraid of what the dark may conceal so he chooses not to go.
The same person finds one friend and the level of fear is less. The pair are more likely to accept the risks, although the actual danger has not changed
These two chaps find ten more friends and the level of percieved risk decreases because of the "power in numbers" principle. When really, the actual level of danger has not changed.

Another example; A group of friends are at the river. One of them suggests jumping from a rock into a small pool. An error in trajectory will result in serious injury. Alone, none of them would attempt such a stunt. However, feeding off peer pressure, one decides to display his courage and jumps. Seeing one person safely do it lowers the percieved danger within the group as a whole. More members of the group are likely to repeat the jump. All the while, the actual level of danger has not changed.

How does the size of the group affect the amount of risk the group, as a whole, is willing to accept?

I would like to add, before someone else does, that this is an extremely dangerous way to think for BASE. Which is why I would like to know more about it.

*Is this type of thinking prevalent on easier sites?
*What about more advanced sites?
*How can we make people more aware of this principle?
*How much does this affect each of us in our jumping? (negative or positive)
*Is this even occuring?

Just food for thought. ---Dex

Not trying to argue and start a semantics battle, but I believe the level of danger would change if you were accompanied by another human. If danger "strikes" two are more likely to be able to defend the attack successfully. I understand your main point, just had to be an asshole there

Well where I come from, in the woods you could encounter creatures such as bears, cougars, and even drunk rednecks in large pickups. Two people are hardly, if any, better off than one person alone.
---Dex

Well, this seems a bit to me like an inherent nature of all social/pack animals. Left alone, the average pack animal is spooked and insecure. Together with pack-mates, this insecurity drops.

In a sense, a solitary pack animal is an incomplete unit, just like a piece of a car engine isn't really a standalone unit with much effectiveness absent the other pieces that make a motor.

So, yes, pack animals are more able to take actions - more specifically, "risky" actions - with other pack members present.

As to BASE, I'd argue that many BASE jumpers nowadays are basically pack rejects, the "lone wolves" of society. We're proportionately less reliant on pack feedback, and more of a nature to assess our own risks and actions internally versus through the mechanisms of pack feedback. This is a relative think, however; there's still a "BASE community" and nearly every BASE jumper in the world is still affected by the zeitgeist of the BASE world at large.

Peace,

D-d0g

Well where I come from, in the woods you could encounter creatures such as bears, cougars, and even drunk rednecks in large pickups. Two people are hardly, if any, better off than one person alone.
---Dex


So - you are from South Carolina???

No, I'm originally from Northern California, and have been living in Washington state for a while now.

Actually right now I'm not even in the US (Iraqi Freedom stuff).

Stay safe out there! ---Dex

think of the local..DONT burn objects

you mean oil fields??

he he nope.. dont ruin their highrisebuildings too much...