[MUSIC] In addition to norm sensitivity described in the last video, risk perception and risk sensitivity also determine whether someone is willing to be a first mover. Prior to the civil rights movement, staging a sit-in to protest systemic inequality was a highly risky activity. And indeed, it was the presence of black students in a city for whom deviating incurred fewer risks than for working it out that predicted the incidence of sit-ins. For black Americans, the risk of deviating from the norms, maintaining these inequalities, was very real. But it was a perceived magnitude of such risk what ultimately influence their behavior. Black college students who perceive the risk to be smaller than they actually were, or who were generally risk-seeking, were theoretically more likely to stage a sit in than risk-averse students or students with more accurate perception of the potential consequences of deviating. In this example, and in many others, the risks of being a first mover are especially high. So trend-setters are likely to be either particularly risky and sensitive or to misperceive the actual risks of deviance. We must distinguish risk sensitivity, a general trait, from the more variable risk perception, as both are essential determinants of a person willingness to be the first to abandon a norm. Psychological research sheds light on how risk sensitivity influences behavior and what types of people are generally risk-seeking or risk-adverse. I should stress that personal risk sensitivity is invariant. It is a stable disposition. It is often assumed that criminals, adolescents with ADHD and entrepreneurs share a low sensitivity to risk. They largely discount the future, or have permanent, overly optimistic views of their chances of success. In contrast to risk sensitivity, risk perception varies in the same person, depending on the specific situation. Risk perception changes based on the actual circumstances, what is at stake, and the action under consideration. The same person with generally high or moderate risk sensitivity could have a very low risk perception in a particular situation. For example, a person of moderate risk sensitivity may not dare cut in line at a supermarket because of the likely disapproval that this action would incur. But may feel much less restrained in stealing some small item in an unpopulated aisle. This person has moderate risk sensitivity and generally avoids risky behavior. But her perception of what constitutes risky behavior vary across situations. Moreover, within a particular domain, in this case cutting in line in a supermarket, risk perception will also vary across individuals. One individual may optimistically believe that cutting a line would at most, induces a sneer from other customers. Whereas another individual with similar risk sensitivity, may imagine that the same action would induce insulting and embarrassing comments. What differentiates objective and perceived risks? In the case of a social norm, several factors may influence risk perception. Risk perception may depend on one's uncertainty about the objective risk of deviating from a norm. A person who has not experience the consequences of transgressing a norm may perceive the cost as greater or lower than they actually are. Risk perception may also depend on one's degree of optimism about the success of one's action. A prime example of these is a person's confidence that they will be followed by others if they initiate a strike. A personal degree of optimism about the success of their actions relates to Bandura concept of perceived self-efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy is one perceived capacity to exercise control over one's self and events in one's life. It is distinct from autonomy, in that autonomy is defined as the perceived ability to act independently from others' control. While perceived self-efficacy's focuses on the degree of the influence one feels he can exert with his actions. Theoretically, sectors should be both autonomous and have high perceived self-efficacy before deviating from an established norm. When dealing with counter normative actions, one must believe that one's action will carry weight before being willing to engage in them. Lastly, risk perception may be influenced by the perceived trade-off between the risk of negative sanction and the much larger benefit incurred in initiating new behavior. In other words, focusing on the expected benefits may cause one to forget about negative consequences and dampen a risk perception. We can assume that risk sensitivity is normally distributed in a population. On the contrary, risk perception will be distributed around the objective risk. Supposed that is well known that violation of the norm that one should wait in line when paying at the supermarket, illicit a strong display of disapproval. In this case, most people risk perception will cluster around the typical disapproval response.
