Violence, Fear, Perception and Agency
Deepali Bhattacharya
In conversation with TD, Clinical Psychologist · An eleven-part reflection, with notes and references
PART VI
“That Could Have Been Me”
“Fear is not only about danger. It is about nearness.”
A few days after the train murder, I found myself listening to conversations in different places. At a café. In a waiting room. During a taxi ride. People were discussing the same incident, but their reactions were strikingly different.
One young woman who travelled daily by local train admitted that she had barely slept the night after watching the video.
An elderly gentleman who mostly travelled by car said, “Terrible incident… but these things happen.”
Neither response was wrong.
They were simply different.
When I mentioned this to TD, he smiled.
“The mind asks only one question before it measures risk,” he said.
“Could that have been me?”
Psychologists call this risk perception. Interestingly, our perception of risk is rarely based on statistical probability. It is shaped by familiarity, proximity and imagination. 13
A commuter who boards the same train every day does not see a random incident. She sees herself standing in that compartment.
A parent watching news of violence against children imagines their own son or daughter.
A young bride hearing of another dowry death quietly wonders about her own future.
Fear becomes personal long before danger becomes probable.
This is why two people watching the same news bulletin often walk away with entirely different emotions.
The event is the same.
The imagination is different.
Years ago, while interacting with women in rural communities, I noticed something similar. Women routinely described walking long distances before sunrise or after sunset because they had no choice. When I asked whether they were afraid, many replied, “Yes. But we still have to go.”
Their fear had not disappeared.
Life had simply left them with fewer alternatives.
Risk perception is therefore never only psychological. 14
It is also social.
Economic circumstances.
Gender.
Age.
Disability.
Occupation.
All shape how close danger feels.
Perhaps this is why public policy must listen not only to crime statistics but also to people’s lived experiences of safety.
Because people do not live according to probability.
They live according to perception.
And perception shapes behaviour.
A QUESTION THAT STAYED WITH ME…
If fear grows through imagination, can memory make that fear last long after the event has passed?
Notes:
13. The classic account is Slovic (1987): lay risk perception tracks dread, familiarity and controllability rather than probability. Loewenstein et al. (2001) formalise this as “risk as feelings” — emotional reactions to risk routinely diverge from cognitive assessments and often drive behaviour.
14. Kasperson et al. (1988) call this the social amplification of risk: social position, communication channels and institutional response amplify or attenuate how dangerous an event feels to different groups.
GyaniNani's Reading Room 
Leave a comment