Psychophysical Numbing: When Lives Are Valued Less as the Lives at Risk Increase

Costly life-saving interventions can often be described not only in terms of the number of lives that may be saved but also in terms of the proportion of lives saved out of some total number at risk. In a phenomenon that has been referred to as psychophysical numbing (PN), Fetherstonhaugh, Slovic, Johnson, and Friedrich (1997) found that participants rated an intervention saving a fixed number of lives to be less worth investing in when more total lives were at risk (i.e., when saved lives represented a smaller proportion of the total threat or problem). In two new experiments, life-valuation correlates of PN responding, as well as manipulations of death salience, accountability, and economics focus, were explored in the context of students’ willingness to support mandatory antilock brake requirements for new cars. PN responding was pervasive, but non-PN responders were clearly distinguished by the greater overall value they placed on saving lives. Salience and accountability manipulations did not debias judgments but did tend to rule out low-effort processing as an explanation for these quantity confusions. An emphasis on economic considerations was consistently related to greater PN responding.

[1]  P. Tetlock The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model , 1992 .

[2]  Jeanne X. Kasperson,et al.  Perilous Progress: Managing The Hazards Of Technology , 1985 .

[3]  William Boulding,et al.  THE PRICE OF SAFETY. , 1996 .

[4]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects , 1975 .

[5]  Timothy B. Heath,et al.  Mental Accounting and Changes in Price: The Frame Dependence of Reference Dependence , 1995 .

[6]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[7]  Julie R. Irwin,et al.  Anomalies in the Values for Consumer Goods with Environmental Attributes , 1997 .

[8]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Stalking the elusive "vividness" effect. , 1982 .

[9]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. , 1993 .

[10]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Characterizing Perceived Risk , 1985 .

[11]  Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice , 1985 .

[12]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing , 1997 .

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[14]  B. Weiner,et al.  Inferences Of Responsibility And Social Motivation , 1995 .

[15]  J. Baron,et al.  Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation , 1997 .

[16]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Teaching the Use of Cost-Benefit Reasoning in Everyday Life , 1990 .

[17]  Lee G. Cooper,et al.  The Discounting of Discounts and Promotion Thresholds , 1992 .

[18]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Nonconsequentialist decisions. Commentaries. Author's reply , 1994 .

[19]  A K Lund,et al.  Fatal crashes of passenger vehicles before and after adding antilock braking systems. , 1997, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: Contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence , 1996 .

[21]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[23]  Tridib Mazumdar,et al.  Consumer Evaluations of Multiple versus Single Price Change , 1993 .

[24]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Explaining the Identifiable Victim Effect , 1997 .