What is common knowledge in my field is that the risks of fatalities accepted, both by the population and the government differ very much between rail and private vehicle

this can  be revealed by the amount of investment decided to avoid mortal incident (much  higher in rail than in road). The press also plays a role.  

From my library, I have plucked Risk-Taking Behaviour (1992) J Frank Yates Ed., John Wiley & Sons; this is a comprehensive treatment, perhaps worth a look; don't know if there's an updated edition.

@Ben - let me elaborate a bit: (financial) risk is quantifiable via a number of metrics such as portfolio standard deviation, various ratios that look at debt to income or equity, VAR measures, etc. That being said, in the context of household finance, how much financial risk is deemed too much by society - by peers, family, friends, but also society at large. We frown upon people that don't save enough for retirement (longevity risk, retirement security risk), we chide those who are swimming in credit card debt, and personal bankruptcy is more or less taboo. 

So, there is a lot of work done on 1) quantitative measures of risk (see my above remarks), typically relating to institutional risk taking and on 2) behavioral finance or cognitive biases & barriers (see your own remarks above). What I am interested in is to fill in the gap as to what amount of financial risk do people feel comfortable taking based on normative pressures from culture and society. For example, I can open another credit card, but then I might feel ashamed since it's more than I believe my peers to have, or I'd be embarrassed to admit it. So I want to bring in the social construction of risk taking behavior as a layer on top of individual cognition and emotion.

Adam: From the theoretical viewpoint, are you looking for social welfare functions (used in welfare economics) for ordering preferences in collective choice? Or contracting arrangements -- relaxing rationality constraints -- like the ones examined by Hart and Holmstrom (2016 Nobel Prize in Economics) to tackle incentives and moral hazard?  Or the choice architecture (behavior based) for "nudge economics" proposed by Thaler and Sunstein? The nudge approach seems close to your quest.  As you can see just from the above, this challenge can be tackled in a number of ways: looking at social ordering of preferences/risk, use of contracts to place the right incentives and constraints socially, and also incorporating behavioral understanding to nudge toward an assumed "optimal" course of action.  Regards.

@Suresh, it's actually none of these.. although 'nudge' may be related, this is usually done via regulation or law, by a government, employer, or organization (e.g. schools putting healthy foods at eye level in the cafeteria).

What I am interested in is more about what is deemed socially acceptable. For example, if you dutifully save 10% of your pre-tax income each month for retirement that is acceptable. If you save 0% that is somewhat less acceptable. If you save -10% (i.e. go in to debt) that is seen as not acceptable. 

There is a tension between what I am talking about here and the trend towards personal responsibility, where there is a sink or swim attitude. But, throughout history there has been a cultural and socially constructed structure of what is "too risky" and this varies by demographic (e.g. whites vs minorities, low vs high income, male vs female). It may be acceptable for a man to invest heavily in risky stocks but not a woman (I am making this up for example)

Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” is well known and often cited for its emphasis of the “invisible hand” as the bulwark of free enterprise, but few cite his “Theory of Moral Sentiments” that looked at ethics, private rights, liberty and so on. Smith has been unfairly projected by many as advancing the sink or swim picture of personal responsibility — through the “invisible hand”. He was clearly aware of the inequality that distorts such ideals. Free will and rational self interest are inextricably mixed up in Smith's invisible hand. When free will is not present (in all participating and interacting groups), “rational” self-interest can take on dangerous and irrational proportions, as it has in colonialism, slavery, the class system, women’s inequality, religious exploitation and so on. This point is often ignored.

The problem is an interesting one (and hoary) but “ill-posed" to start with because what is deemed “socially acceptable” is arbitrary but typically presented as having uniqueness and obvious Boolean truth value. Setting apart the non-unique and non-Boolean character, social acceptance also has both a temporal character and a spatial distribution (at a particular time). It is capable of reversal — that is, lose its truth value instantly (which is part of its temporal character). The examples of colonialism, slavery, class system, the suppression of women and religious dictate should be quite obvious.

A few other scattered examples to drive home these points:

For example, what was once the province of men alone (e.g. serving in the military) could be in a stroke (when such artificial constraints are lifted) become socially acceptable. The preference function just got updated or the constraints applied to one group relaxed/removed. This is the same for other social constructs earlier and unfairly considered socially/legally unacceptable (such as gay marriage).

Crime is also subject to socially acceptable measures, through the the jury system, and this notion of social validity varies else (where judges or elders can be a proxy for the social order). We deem extra-judicial proceedings illegitimate because of lack of social acceptance.

The concept of personal finance varies between groups and what is “social acceptable” for one group may not be for another group. E.g. one culture may emphasize and accept risk seeking for ventures that another culture may devalue — in effect, what is seen as premium is seen as risk through an another lens.

Depriving property rights for women was the norm and still extant in many places.

Drunken driving (now unacceptable) can becoming meaningless in a self driving car culture. Thus ownership of a self driving car changes the risk function applied, both at the personal and group level (the primary lens worn by an insurer). Technology can thus alter the risk function dramatically and unpredictably — there are many such examples.

Thus you can have risk perceived rational but not socially acceptable or risk that is socially acceptable but not rational. This aspect somehow seems to make us human and inhuman at the same time.

When behavioral economics entered the picture, it modified the assumption of rational actors and thus made the notion of acceptable risk more central, in my opinion, and behaviorally determined.

Of course, socially determined norms will differ in different milieu. What, though, may well be invariate is the behaviour of individuals who fly under the radar of the norms in their actual behaviour, or dress narratives given to friends and neighbours, so as to make the behaviour seem acceptable.

I am writing from Thailand, high in the league table for personal financial incompetence (there's a long background narrative) and equally high in desperation workarounds.

Let's think about having to borrow money. That could be, say, from family, friends, the money-lender. Arguably there's a pecking order there in social acceptability, but much more to the point, if you borrow from family will that go beyond the four walls? If it's from the moneylender, knowledge will almost certainly pass into the neighbourhood. I've seen pictures of a money lender's man waiting for clients to come and pay. It's not discreet!

Imagine you send your daughter away to the bright lights of Bangkok, Pattaya, wherever. Imagine, worried by the state of the family finances (in my experience there's an amazing level of openness within the family about financial issues) she has volunteered to go. Do you scream to the neighbourhood (many of whom will have done the same!) "It's brilliant. We are going to be wealthy. My daughter's off to Bangkok to be a prostitute". Of course not - loss of face. The narrative normally becomes one of "waitress" - even though everyone knows the truth!

An interesting part of the face mechanisms here is that while the parent went through the subterfuge (and it even happens within the family, for instance Mum guardian of the truth) to save face, the daughter will gain face, come what may, for her supporting her family. If she manages to develop that further, by co-opting others, for instance a "rich" farang (foreigner) husband, better still.

The academic expert here on personal finance is Roy Kouwenberg of Mahidol University's College of Management. Making contact or just scanning his publications may be worthwhile. Likewise, there are likely to be touch-points between your research and mine, as I move over to Shinawatra University. When the ink as it were is dry between Shinawatra and myself, I'll be updating on the new research area.