Terrorism and Probability Neglect
- Cass R. Sunstein
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
When strong emotions are involved, people tend to focus on the badness of the outcome, rather than on the probability that the outcome will occur. The resulting “probability neglect” helps to explain excessive reactions to low-probability risks of catastrophe. Terrorists show a working knowledge of probability neglect, producing public fear that might greatly exceed the discounted harm. As a result of probability neglect, people often are far more concerned about the risks of terrorism than about statistically larger risks that they confront in ordinary life. In the context of terrorism and analogous risks, the legal system frequently responds to probability neglect, resulting in regulation that might be unjustified or even counterproductive. But public fear is itself a cost, and it is associated with many other costs, in the form of “ripple effects” produced by fear. As a normative matter, government should reduce even unjustified fear, if the benefits of the response can be shown to outweigh the costs.
- Alkahami, A.S. and P. Slovic. (1994). "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis 14, 1085–1096.
- Corso, P., J. Hammitt, and J. Graham. (2001). "Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 165–184.
- Elster, J. (1983). Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Foster, K., D. Bernstein, and P. Huber. (eds.). (1993). Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Gibbs, L.M. (1998). Love Canal: The Story Continues. New York: New Society Publishers.
- Hamilton, J. and W.K. Viscusi. Calculating Risks: The Spatial and Political Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Harrington, M. (2002). "People's Willingness To Accept Airport Security Delays in Exchange for Lesser Risk," (unpublished manuscript, on file with author).
- Huber, P. (1983). "The Old-New Division in Risk Regulation," Virginia Law Review 69, 1025–1106.
- Johnson, E.J., J. Hershey, J. Meszaros, and H. Kunreuther. (1993). "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 35–41.
- Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," Econometrica 47, 263–291.
- Kunreuther, H., N. Novemsky, and Daniel Kahneman. (2001). "Making Low Probabilities Useful," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 103–120.
- Kuran, T. and C. Sunstein. (1999). "Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation," Stanford Law Review51, 683–768.
- Loewenstein, G.F., E.U. Weber, C.K. Hsee, and E.S. Welch. (2001). "Risk as Feelings," Psychological Bulletin 127, 267–286.
- Margolis, Howard. (1993). Dealing With Risk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Noll, R. and J. Krier. (1990). "Some Implications of Cognitive Psychology for Risk Regulation," Journal of Legal Studies 19, 747–779.
- Rothschild, M. (2001). "Terrorism and You—The Real Odds," Policy Matters, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, available at http://www.aei-brookings.org/policy/page.php?id=19#top.
- Rottenstreich, Y. and C. Hsee. (2001). "Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk," Psychological Science 12, 185–190.
- Sandman, P., N.D. Weinstein, and W.K. Hallman. (1998). "Communications to Reduce Risk Underestimation and Overestimation," Risk Decision and Policy 3, 93–108.
- Sandman, P., P. Miller, B. Johnson, and N.D. Weinstein. (1994). "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Peception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis 13, 589–602.
- Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan Publications.
- Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. MacGregor. (2002). "The Affect Heuristic." In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, pp. 397–420.
- Slovic, P., J. Monahan, and D. MacGregor. (2000). "Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Communication: The Effect of Using Actual Cases, Providing Instructions, and Employing Probability vs. Frequency Formats," Law and Human Behavior 24, 271–296.
- Sunstein, C. (2002a). Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sunstein, C. (2002b). "Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases, and Law," Yale Law Journal 112, 61–107.
- Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1974). "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," Science 185, 1124– 1131.
- Viscusi, W. Kip. (2000). "Corporate Risk Analysis: A Reckless Act?" Stanford Law Review 52, 547–597.
- Wildavsky, A. (1995). But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Terrorism and Probability Neglect
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Volume 26, Issue 2-3 , pp 121-136
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- behavioral economics
- risk perception
- Industry Sectors
- Cass R. Sunstein (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Political Science, University of Chicago Law School, 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA