Lecture 7: Human Perceptions of Risk

Examples at start of reading

under-reaction to earthquakes by UCLA students

over-reaction to lightning vs tornadoes

Under-reactions

Human risk perception

Primary bias (size of effect bias)

Secondary bias (attentional bias)

ppl underestimate frequencies of common causes of death eg. heart disease, stroke, stomach cancer

Curved line represents bias

ppl overestimate frequencies of rare causes of death eg. food poisoning, floods

exaggerate sensational & dramatic forms of death

Events with similar actual probabilities but rated higher when ppl estimate the risk

Slovic et al

Rutgers study on assessing risk to self (unrealistic optimism)

Can try elongating time frame to risk in a lifetime

Farm management experiment

"getting on with one's life" expln

Example of seatbelt usage

it's the probability of the hazard occurring and not the severity of the damage it causes which influence one's insurance purchase decisions

ppl buy insurance for high probabiltiy/low-loss hazards instead of low-prob/high-loss hazards

criticism of Slovic et al

expln can't be generalised to non-direct, slowly developing threats posed by environmental problems

ppl's perceptions towards environment depends on whether they think of them in personal or social terms

Cognitive & perceptual biases

Optimism relates to mental health

when ppl have little perceived control, tend to ignore/discount the threat

Taylor & Brown's 3 illusions

We often believe we can influence events that are in fact determined by chance

We are overly positive about our health

We think our skills & abilities are better than they actually are

Criticism

same as for Slovic et al

Overreaction

High public concern with nuclear power

Nuclear disasters are attention grabbing

Difficulty in estimating real risks

Devastating potential effect but risk very low->sensationalised

Chernobyl

Fukushima

3 Mile Island

scientists may have disagreements over risks

scientists use "fault-tree"analysis

Scientific evaluations usually don't match public perception of risk due to diff in perceptions of what is acceptable

Psychological Stress Theory

influences on public's assessment of what is acceptable

Ability to kill in a single accident

Damage to environment & wildlife

Degree of disagreement among scientists

How equitable & voluntary the distribution of risks

Level of trust in authorities/industry

Appraisal

examples of appraisal

Types of stressors CADS

we appraise stressors and cope depending on ability

Ambient stressors

Daily hassles

Stressful life events

Cataclysmic events

Primary appraisal

Secondary appraisal

2 strategies

if have complete control to stop stressors, it's resolved

Assess magnitude of stressor & how much it impact us

assess degree of coping ability & resources available

Problem-focused

Emotion-focused

strategies (WARD F)

Avoidance of issues

Religious faith

Wishful thinking

Fatalism & learned helplessness

Tornado study

Tsunami in Banda Aceh

Alabama external locus of control-->depend on emotional based strategies

can only cope through emotion-based strategies

can cause widespread psychological trauma

Learned helplessness

can become pathological

emotion-based coping not entirely dysfunctional

inability to control the environment-->emotional responses & trauma

pathological when we don't implement solutions even if efforts to regain control might be effective

we need emotional support to overcome stressors in life

there are things beyond our control eg. Death, disasters

Cultural diff in emphasis on emotion-coping

Perceptual biases

Availability heuristic

Bounded rationalism

Gambler's fallacy

underestimate the reoccurrence of natural disasters following a disaster

Fail to recognise that individual natural disasters are independent of each other

we are limited in time & energy-->can't process all info

Rely on simplifications & heuristics

initially, believed ppl's minds are rational & make decisions after evaluating all strategies & calculating what is best

prisoners of their experience

Studies

eg. Name list study

judge probability/freq of future event based on ease with which u can imagine or recall similar events from the past

those who have experienced disaster more likely to take action

but air pollution & global warming are not very visible

Hard to conceptualise & take action for things they haven't experienced

Sims & Baumann

Weinstein

Dooley et al

residents who experienced earthquake 3 times more likely to take preventive measures

however effect wears off after several months

personal experience increases protective action

Also suggest can increase denial IF experience makes person have lower perceived control than in the past

other heuristics

Govt attention goes to problems dramatic/anxiety provoking

scientists/engineers consider oil spills & radiation from power plants less damaging overall

Should focus more resources on less dramatic but impt issues eg. (Species extinction, global warming, ozone layer)

Media

over-reporting of dramatic deaths & sensational environmental events

Use of vivid & concrete images

unshackle the "prisoner of experience"

can counter under-reaction

Decision can be influenced by how it is framed

Over-confidence of accuracy

anchoring & adjustment heuristic

eg. Estimate number of foreign cars Study

Prospect theory

eg. Public health program study

Need for Certainty

ppl more upset by losing smth than happy abt gaining the same thing

eg. London bombings by Germans

parallel with Taylor & Brown's illusions of control to maintain mental health

deny uncertainty to reduce anxiety & discomfort

due to availability heuristic, scientists may miss out certain items from being included

hence may not include all possible routes->overestimate safety

Accidents early on in a technology

Illinois internal locus of control--> resorted to problem-focused strategies

DIff between Alabama and Illinois