Making low probabilities useful

被引:166
作者
Kunreuther, H [1 ]
Novemsky, N
Kahneman, D
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Wharton Sch, OPIM Dept, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Yale Univ, Sch Management, New Haven, CT USA
[3] Princeton Univ, Dept Psychol, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA
[4] Princeton Univ, Woodrow Wilson Sch, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
low probabilities; insurance; field experiment;
D O I
10.1023/A:1011111601406
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
This paper explores how people process information on low probability-high consequence negative events and what it will take to get individuals to be sensitive to the likelihood of these types of accidents or disasters. In a set of experiments, information is presented to individuals on the likelihood of serious accidents from a chemical facility. Comparisons are made with other risks, such as fatalities from automobile accidents, to see whether laypersons can determine the relative safety of different plants. We conclude that fairly rich context information must be available for people to be able to judge differences between low probabilities. In particular, it appears that one needs to present comparison scenarios that are located on the probability scale to evoke people's own feelings of risk. The concept of evaluability recently introduced by Hsee and his colleagues provides a useful explanation of these findings.
引用
收藏
页码:103 / 120
页数:18
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], POLLUTION CONTROL US
[2]   DECISION-PROCESSES FOR LOW PROBABILITY EVENTS - POLICY IMPLICATIONS [J].
CAMERER, CF ;
KUNREUTHER, H .
JOURNAL OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT, 1989, 8 (04) :565-592
[3]   Utilizing third-party inspections for preventing major chemical accidents [J].
Er, J ;
Kunreuther, HC ;
Rosenthal, I .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1998, 18 (02) :145-153
[4]   DECISION-MAKING UNDER IGNORANCE - ARGUING WITH YOURSELF [J].
HOGARTH, RM ;
KUNREUTHER, H .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 1995, 10 (01) :15-36
[5]   Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis [J].
Hsee, CK ;
Loewenstein, GF ;
Blount, S ;
Bazerman, MH .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1999, 125 (05) :576-590
[6]   The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives [J].
Hsee, CK .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1996, 67 (03) :247-257
[7]   Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks [J].
Huber, O ;
Wider, R ;
Huber, OW .
ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 1997, 95 (01) :15-29
[8]  
KUNREUTHER H, 2001, ENV CONTRACTS COMP A
[9]   INSURANCE FOR LOW-PROBABILITY HAZARDS - A BIMODAL RESPONSE TO UNLIKELY EVENTS [J].
MCCLELLAND, GH ;
SCHULZE, WD ;
COURSEY, DL .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 1993, 7 (01) :95-116
[10]  
MGAT W, 1987, LEARNING RISK, P83