Flaws pp 1-12 | Cite as


  • Christopher L. Pepin-Neff


This chapter introduces the three main flaws that underpin the human-shark relationship: the depiction of sharks as the enemy, the idea that sharks intentionally “attack” humans, and the assumption that policy responses are designed to provide beach safety. This book advances the argument that the politics of shark “attacks” involves the way politicians use the emotionality of the situation following a shark bite to control the policy process and protect themselves. This chapter highlights how shark bites are emblematic of policymaking under highly emotional conditions. In response, I argue that politicians try to protect themselves, and that responses to shark bites can make situations worse by offering a false sense of security.


Sharks Shark attack Emotions Public policy 


  1. Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk tasking, and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Pepin-Neff, C. L., & Wynter, T. (2018). Reducing fear to influence policy preferences: An experiment with sharks and beach safety policy options. Marine Policy, 88, 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Robbins, W. D., et al. (2014). Experimental evaluation of shark detection rates by aerial observers. Ed. Markus Lappe. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e83456. PMC. Web. 15 October 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher L. Pepin-Neff
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations