Making Low Probabilities Useful

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.

[1]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Decision making under ignorance: Arguing with yourself , 1995 .

[2]  G. McClelland,et al.  Insurance for low-probability hazards: A bimodal response to unlikely events , 1993 .

[3]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives , 1996 .

[4]  O. Huber,et al.  Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks , 1997 .

[5]  J. Clarence Davies,et al.  Pollution Control in the United States: Evaluating the System , 1998 .

[6]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications , 1989 .

[7]  W. Viscusi,et al.  5. Risk-Dollar Tradeoffs, Risk Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior , 1987 .

[8]  H. Kunreuther,et al.  Third‐Party Inspection as an Alternative to Command and Control Regulation , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  N D Weinstein,et al.  Using time intervals between expected events to communicate risk magnitudes. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective☆ , 1978 .

[11]  I Rosenthal,et al.  Utilizing third-party inspections for preventing major chemical accidents. , 1998, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

[13]  Eric R. Stone,et al.  Risk communication: absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks , 1994 .