The
communicative risk in "ordinary language".
Implicit approach to the risk communicative situations as sources of criminal and diverting behaviour
By Vladimir Iliev,
It is analyzed in the report
how the individual elements of the communicative situation in the direct
interpersonal communication are evaluated from the point of view of their risk
potential. Their designation, the preliminary expectations and their
subordination at the level of the topical social reality marks the margins of
the potential threats of diverting and criminal behaviour.
The preventive measures for overcoming the passivity towards the criminal and
diverting behaviour include limiting the adjustment
in the persons with criminal and diverting behaviour
for the “good” risk and decreasing the fear in the remaining part of people
from the “bad” risk.
Key words: risk,
communicative situation, social behaviour
The
social reaction to the diverting and criminal behaviour
is not a single act. It is a hard and long way, requiring patience. Except
patience it involves movement, too. Showing the right trend and the most
efficient instrument for general limiting the manifestations of diverting and
criminal behaviour is a difficult task. It is not an
encouraging situation if we consider it from the point of view of the
maximizing expectations for fast and final results. However, there is another
viewpoint, which does not examine disparagingly the intermediate achievements
and encourages the multi-disciplinary approach in working out strategies for
social control on the diverting and criminal behaviour.
The study of the human social behaviour in the context of the communication between
people permits not only the personality but the situational factors, standing in
the genesis of the diverting and criminal behaviour,
to be recorded. Furthermore. When the problems of the
sphere of “border” interpersonal interaction are studied, in most cases without
peculiar difficulties, we find why, when, where, how,
with whom the probability the diverting and criminal behaviour
to be manifested as well as to escalate, is the biggest.
Risk,
as a whole and risk communicative situations, in particular, are namely the
territory of the “border” interpersonal communication. The study of the
communicative risk allows adequate prognosis to be made for the threats, the
efforts for localizing the unfavourable consequences
of the diverting and criminal behaviour to be
integrated, to be reacted at individual and group level for crime prevention.
People,
of course, do not have an equal attitude to risk. Some are indifferent to it,
others overrate its importance. That in combination with the assumption that
there exists “bad” risk /with the possibility for damage/ and “good” risk /with
possibility for profit/ reveals to a considerable extent the reactions in
specific communicative situations.
The
diverting and criminal behaviour is motivated by the
kinetic energy of the assumption that a person has “good” luck and won’t be
punished for his/her actions. Otherwise, people who observe laws and in the
general sense have decent behaviour are somewhat
passive in their reactions to damages, ensuing from the communicative
interrelation accompanied by the diverting and criminal behaviour.
The potential energy of over apprehensions as propensity increases in them,
which limits their social activity and behavioral repertory.
Generally
speaking people with diverting and criminal behaviour
have two basic propensities to the risk in communication: indifference to the
“bad” risk and overrating the “good” risk. In the remaining part of people the
overrating of the “bad” risk results in indifference and mistrust to the “good” risk. This is an interesting phenomena, speaking volumes about restricting the possibilities
of the “ordinary” people for multi-level and flexible overcoming and control on
risk communicative situations in the conditions of diverting and criminal behaviour.
This
presentation reveals some theoretical frames and experimental results that
might be used as an effective approach in prevention, correction and
re-socialization of people with propensity and manifestation of diverting and
criminal behaviour. This approach for regulating the
risk potential in communicative situations might be utilized for a wide circle
of people for increasing the interpersonal adaptation for social situations
connected with menace of such behaviour.
The
interaction between the participants in a communicative situation is a complex
and multidimensional space of a new "psychic reality" of the contact.
The existence of alternatives in the development of this reality is a
prerequisite for the appearance of a risk. Every communicative situation
possesses an alternative for developing "risk". The risking itself is
such an activity on the part of the person participating in the communicative
situation, which leads to a risky result. It is related to the risky result,
understood as a loss or profit. In the communicative situations, the risk
events are inner as well as outer. Therefore, for identification and
understanding of the risk, a higher degree of consideration of what is
happening in the process of communication is needed.
The
immediate interpersonal interaction in the process of a communicative situation
can escalate to an aberrant or criminal behavior. There is a risk in
"provoking" criminal or aberrant behavior towards us, as well as in
"losing control over one's own behavior", which can turn into
aberrant or criminal.
For
a part of the people with criminal proclivities, the risking and the play on
the other side of the legal barrier is a situation evoking positive experiences
such as enhancing one's own significance, inspiring respect into those around,
searching for an outlet from the monotony of life, etc.
The
understanding of the risk potential of a given situation from the interpersonal
communication allows for the negative consequences with criminal character to
be predicted.
In
the course of our research, results were obtained, which make it possible for a
"topographic map" to be drawn, of the risk concepts and inclinations
within the people towards the situations of immediate communication, and in
this respect, to undertake efficient measures for reducing and predominance
over the socially aberrant and criminal behavior.
The
surveyed persons used 354 different words for describing the risk during
communication. Ten words occurred more than 10 times, 28 between 9 and 4 times,
17 are words that occurred three times, 64 twice, and
the remaining 234 – once. This distribution leads us to the fact of the
ambiguous comprehension of the risk in communication among the different people
or groups of people.
In
a descending order the ten most frequently used words for describing the risk
during communication are:
-
lie
-
aggression
-
misunderstanding
-
envy
-
malice
-
hypocrisy
-
fear
-
mistrust
-
offense
-
hatred
The arrangement of the words strongly corresponds to
the answers of the question "What does an unfavorable situation during
communication look like?". Lie and aggression are
accepted as a major risk by almost all categories of people.
In a descending order, people perceive risk mainly as:
-
opposition
-
reacting against the opponent
-
constructing of the relation
-
status
-
satisfaction
-
psychological presence
-
acquaintance with the other person
-
behavioral presence
-
self-presentation
-
unselfishness
-
influence upon the other person
The age affects in accordance with the way, the risk
communicative situations are perceived. The transitivity of the risk concepts
outlines as the most important tendency, i.e. at a different age, one gives
credit to one or another major type of concepts of what risk is.
According to the youngest (under 20), the risk occurs
mainly in the opposition between the interlocutors. Probably, this is most
closely related to the stage of "fighting for social presence".
Whether it will be in the shape of direct confrontation, or through competition
and self-establishment, on both poles of the interpersonal contact, a strong
counter-tension is created. Hence, the facts concerning youthful aggression and
confrontation are explicable.
According to the persons between 20 and 30, the
greatest risk is in the good intentions and expectations implied and the
response of the interlocutor. This is a period when we encounter social
disappointments and deceived hopes. During those years and at this age is the
time for starting work, creating lasting relationships and forming a family,
undertaking more and more social responsibilities. The feeling is often present
that honesty is confronted by hypocrisy and lie, that loyalty expends faster
than the depleted interest, that under the sparkling attractive shell of great
promises there is usually nothing to find.
At the age of 30-40, the risk in communication is related to the fulfillment of the necessities of the interlocutors. This is the time, when the goal justifies the means. The times of the youthful rivalry and disappointment have gone. The flame of the great expectations has subsided. The opportunities for productivity in the different spheres of life move towards their peak values. Man, on the grounds of personal experience, starts to understand that the avoidance of unnecessary risks and the undertaking of justifiable ones during the communication with other people is the right strategy for completion of goals and fulfillment of necessities of all sorts of character. The application of such a strategy is not a magic word for opening the gate of welfare, but definitely, it is inscribed in the elementary necessity for man to be socially active.
Within the groups from 40-50 and above 60, there are
similar results, and they are such that risk is perceived simultaneously as
opposition and cross-purposing of the good intentions implied and the results
obtained. It seems that the spiral of life has made one (from 40-50) turn and
(over 60) another one and again in a slightly different way it turns back to
the concepts of the persons below 20 and between 20-30.
The process of reassessment of the achieved life is started. Gradually we
succumb to the feeling that time is running faster and faster. We have had so
many plans, so few of which have been accomplished. We compare ourselves to the
other people, we scrutiny ourselves critically, painfully getting over the last
remnants of our illusions. In this reassessment, the concept is formed that
opposition is a very essential phenomenon on an individual scale.
According to the group of people at the age of 50-60,
the risk is generally related to the necessity to communicate and develop human
contacts and relationships. At this age is probably the most moderate and
profound position with relation to risky communication. It is not perceived as
concrete and definite situations, but is inscribed in all situations,
accompanying the interpersonal relationships.
There exist several categories of people, who are the
typical participants in risky communicative situations. According to what
extent the communication with them represents a risk, they can be arranged in
the following sequence:
-
an incidental acquaintance
-
a boss
-
a stranger
-
own children
-
parents
-
friends
-
a spouse
-
colleagues
-
an official
-
other relatives
-
a familiar person
-
an intimate partner
The communication is an integral process with a
beginning, development and an end. This is valid not only for the separate
communicative situation but for the interpersonal relationship as well.
According to the surveyed people, risk situations are most common in the
process of relationship development. During this period of the contact, the
relationship deepens, the participants obtain more and
more information for each other. This is the time when both parties develop
their presence in the direction of realization of their goals. There are
opportunities for shortening the interpersonal distance, which also hides a
potential for a risky development of the situation.
In second place in terms of risk is the period of
termination of relationship and communication. According to the people, the way
"out" from communication, whether a single concrete situation, or on
a more general scale, within the framework of a particular relationship, can
evoke risks. They, in most of the cases, concern the future, with relation to
what the relationship between the parties will be in the course of time.
The termination of a relationship is not only a menace.
When from a given relationship people get out on good terms and respect, it
creates an opportunity for the future, even after a considerable period of
time, for useful contacts between the participants.
It is only in the third place for people to consider
that there can be a risk during the initial acquaintance and instance of
contact. This is an interesting phenomenon. Most people are embarrassed during
the initial contacts and acts of acquainting, considering them impeding,
although, they do not perceive any great risks in that. The explanation can be
found in the fact that on occasions of new encounters man is more mobilized,
attentive, and suspicious. Moreover, one has considerable freedom to choose
whether to continue the contact or to terminate it. The circumstance that
during newly-established contacts, one can present oneself in a new light, is
not unessential, one is not "tethered" to existing opinions and
assessments about him. In this respect, the danger of harming during self-revelation
is considerably reduced, as well as from aggregation of errors and negatives
from previous meetings.
The most risky time from the point of view of
occurrence of risky situations is the evening. It is followed by the daytime,
the night, and the early morning. The logic of the answers follows the
probability for socializing during the twenty-four-hour period.
The evening is the time when man is in the post-peak
condition of upsurge and activity during the day. Therefore, during it, gradually begins a decline in the psychic condition,
which definitely reflects upon the way of communication. Some of the
indications of risk are not noticeable, one is more
inclined to self-revelation and search for closeness and support. During the
evening contacts man "carries" the accumulated tension and problems
from the day, and in most cases, they affect one's communication.
The most dangerous risks during communications occur
in the first place in social places. Followed by places for
entertainment, the office, and at home.
From the point of view of the negative risk, the
places where one can encounter strangers or semi-strangers,
are the most dangerous. As if in man is inculcated the
feeling that the unknown is in most of the cases dangerous.
Most often the risk situations during communication
are related to the juxtaposition between the interlocutors on the principle
who-whom. It can be in the shape of competition, rivalry or open fight. In the
interpersonal juxtaposition, "the enemies" are seldom subjected to
physical annihilation, but the psychological means for impact of the kind lie
and aggression are often met.
In the second place are situations when good
intentions are being implied, but as a response, no such are received in tern.
This is in its essence unilateral selfless communication, whereat, the other
party does not respond in the same way.
In the third place are situations related to the way
specific needs of the interlocutors are being satisfied. During this kind of
communication of the type "give-take", people create guarantees for
the defense of their interest through correspondence between their own efforts
and the profits gained.
A small minority of people relate the risk to the
necessity of creation and development of contacts. Therefore, the evaluation
whether a given communicative event is risky or not is not much in terms of the
dynamic-processual side of the contact, as it is with
reference to contextual-contentual one. In other
words, the meaning is important of what one involves in communication, not so
much what stage of development of the contact the participants are at.
Interesting is the fact that higher ranking are facts,
about which there is not direct information – with respect to the attitude and
intentions of the interlocutor. This substantiates the idea that the assessment
of risk during communication is highly subjective and is practically an
assessment of ones own attitudes and intentions, projected upon the
interlocutor.
People are inclined to assess the risk on a
situational level, which means to look for threats or chances in the outer
circumstances, as well on a personal level, when they assess more globally what
is happening in their life.
There exist two kinds of localization of control –
internal and external. In the first case, man ascribes what happens to him to
external forces – accident, other people etc. In the second one – the events
are interpreted as a result from own efforts. The prevalent part of the people
studied by us appeared to have distinctive external localization of control. This
means that they are prone to discovering external factors, which determine
their behavior, constantly. Here are included the processes of communication.
The results outlined a tendency for an enhanced fatalism in people. The
localization of control with relation to the successes achieved also has a
distinctive external character. The prevalent number of
people surveyed have distinctive external localization with reference to
success. They consider that their successes are more or less accidental, rather
than due to their efforts. Twice as few are those who consider success to be as
a result from their efforts, but estimate the ratio efforts-luck in a different
way. The tendency is outlined that people rely more on luck than on their own
efforts.
The locus of control when failures are concerned is
completely external. People do not find in them the reasons for failures, when
they fall upon them. Almost half of the surveyed people demonstrated utterly
distinctive external locus control with reference to failures.
On an "everyday level", most important for
the people arte the different situations they encounter. The situational
analysis lies in the foundation of their reasoning and self-analysis concerning
the risk. Within the frames of a more global worldly perspective, personal
factors are predominant.
The understanding of risk is related to the inclinations towards luck when creating social contacts. The perception that one is lucky is stronger in situations, where the negative outcome is perceived as "close" and very much probable. This, that one thing is luck, is determined not so much by the real result from the activity, rather than by what has not happened but could have happened. The worse the thing that could have happened, the luckier the man feels after it did not happen (Tiegen, 1995).
Consider the following. The closer and the worse could
have happened, but did not, the luckier we feel. Therefore, the relation
between luck and risk: the non-realized dangers and losses, accompanying risk,
evoke the experiencing of luck. What most often makes a man feel happy and
lucky – the non-realized loss, whereat, in close perspective, is also present
in risk.
People are more influenced by the presence of close
risks. They have greater importance for them. Therefore, there exists a
tendency for extenuation of the distant and not so much for the close risks,
although, they, due to their character, might be more general for the person.
Bad luck is related mainly to the factual events (what
has really happened), while good luck refers mainly to the opposing events
(what has not happened).
The experiencing of good luck takes place when:
-
the bad result is perceived as
close and probable
-
the bad result has been avoided,
although it has been expected or presumable in the situation
Man thinks that has bad luck in:
-
situations in which the better
outcome and result is impossible
-
this has been expected and
implicated in the situation
People think that luck is not so rare in their
everyday life. Widely spread is the belief that it is something which
periodically calls upon man.
Darke
and Freedman (1997) demonstrated that people, who believe in luck, are inclined
to think that the series of positive chance increase their chances of
additional success. This explains why given form of criminal behavior reoccur.
When one has successfully risked several times, he thinks that next risking
will bring you success. You become as if "hungry" for risk. This
leads to self-encouragement to criminal behavior, whereat, considerable
limiting conditions of the social media are neglected as well as the
legislative system.
People relate luck to two factors – control and
chance. The lack of individual opportunity for control over the events and the
reliance on an external factor (chance) is the major way, through which the
inclination to luck is formed. This is valid for both good and bad luck. When
we control ourselves, we usually try to achieve something positive. With lack
of control, all results are possible. The possession of control is perceived as
a positive phenomenon, while its lack is commonly perceived as negative.
The evoking of unjustified anxiety regarding the
potentially criminal offence against oneself impedes the adequate social
behavior of the ordinary person. Therefore, people should be taught adequate
perception, assessment and reaction towards potentially risky situations under
the conditions of criminal and aberrant behavior towards them. On the opposite,
people with criminal propensities should be subject to purposeful influences in
the direction of awareness of the weakness of their "good" luck while
performing a criminal activity. The similar actions, taken within the general
framework of complex measures for fight against criminal wrongdoing, possess a
potential of an active preventive instructive means.
References:
Iliev,
V. (2004) Risk and Communication, Lege Artis Publishing House
Darke,
P., Freedman, J. (1997). Lucky events and beliefs in luck: Paradoxical
effects on confidence and risk -taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,378-388
Higgins, E. (1992). Achieving “shared reality” in communication game: A social
action that creates meaning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
11. 107-131
Nelkin,
D. (1985). The language of risk.
Teigen,
K. (1995). How good is good luck? The role of
counterfactual thinking in the perception of lucky and unlucky events.
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.,
25, 281-302
Teigen,
K. (1996). Luck: The art of a near miss. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37, 156-171.
Weiner, B., Frieze,
* Vladimir
Iliev has a PhD in Psychology and MA in Law and is a
member of the Bulgarian Scientific Society: http://www.erp-pleven.bg/iliev/