Climatic Change

, Volume 77, Issue 1–2, pp 103–120 | Cite as

Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming does not Scare us (Yet)

  • Elke U. Weber
Article

Abstract

It should come as no surprise that the governments and citizenries of many countries show little concern about climate change and its consequences. Behavioral decision research over the last 30 years provides a series of lessons about the importance of affect in perceptions of risk and in decisions to take actions that reduce or manage perceived risks. Evidence from a range of domains suggests that worry drives risk management decisions. When people fail to be alarmed about a risk or hazard, they do not take precautions. Recent personal experience strongly influences the evaluation of a risky option. Low-probability events generate less concern than their probability warrants on average, but more concern than they deserve in those rare instances when they do occur. Personal experience with noticeable and serious consequences of global warming is still rare in many regions of the world. When people base their decisions on statistical descriptions about a hazard provided by others, characteristics of the hazard identified as psychological risk dimensions predict differences in alarm or worry across different classes of risk. The time-delayed, abstract, and often statistical nature of the risks of global warming does not evoke strong visceral reactions. These results suggest that we should find ways to evoke visceral reactions towards the risk of global warming, perhaps by simulations of its concrete future consequences for people's home or other regions they visit or value. Increased concern about global warming needs to solicited carefully, however, to prevent a decrease in concern about other relevant risks. The generation of worry or concern about global warming may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for desirable or appropriate protective or mitigating behavior on part of the general public.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: 2004, Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ainslie, G.: 1975, ‘Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control’, Psychol. Bull. 82, 463–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berbaum, K. S., et al.: 1991, ‘Time course of satisfaction of search’, Invest. Radiol. 26, 640–648.Google Scholar
  4. Chaiken, S., and Trope, Y.: 1999, Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  5. Dake, K.: 1991, ‘Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases.’ J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 22, 61–82.Google Scholar
  6. Damasio, A. R.: 1993, Descartes' Error. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  7. Douglas, M.: 1985, Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A.: 1982, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dunlap, R. E. and Saad, L.: 2001, Only One in Four Americans are Anxious about the Environment. Gallup News Service.Google Scholar
  10. Epstein, S.: 1994, ‘Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious’, Am. Psychol. 49, 709–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., and Satterfield, T. A.: 2000, ‘Gender, race, perceived risk: The “white male” effect’, Health Risk and Society 2, 159–172.Google Scholar
  12. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., and Combs, B.: 1978, ‘How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits’, Policy Sci. 9, 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Mertz, C. K.: 1994, ‘Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks’, Risk Anal. 14(6), 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldstein, W. M. and Weber, E. U.: 1995, ‘Content and discontent: Indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making’, In: J. R. Busemeyer, R. Hastie, and D. L. Medin (eds.), Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 32 (pp. 83–136). San Diego: Academic Press. Reprinted in W. M. Goldstein and R. M. Hogarth (eds.), Research on Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 566–617). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen, J. E.: 2004, ‘Diffusing the Global Warming Time Bomb’, Sci. Am. 290(3), 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen, J., Marx, S., and Weber, E. U.: 2004, The Role of Climate Perceptions, Expectations, and Forecasts in Farmer Decision Making: The Argentine Pampas and South Florida. International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRI), Palisades, NY: Technical Report 04–01.Google Scholar
  17. Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., and Erev, I.: 2004, ‘Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events’, Psychol. Sci. 15, 534–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., and Erev, I.: 2006, Rare risky prospects: Different when valued through a window of sampled experiences. In: K. Fiedler and P. Juslin (eds.), Information Sampling as a Key to Understanding Adaptive Cognition in an Uncertain Environment. (pp. 72–91) New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Holtgrave, D. and Weber, E. U.: 1993, ‘Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health — and — safety risks’, Risk Anal. 13, 553–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hsee, C. K. and Rottenstreich: 2004, ‘Music, Pandas and Muggers: On the affective psychology of value’, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 133, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 2001, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C. A. (eds.), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  22. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.: 1979, ‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica 47, 263–292.Google Scholar
  23. Laibson, D.: 1997, ‘Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting’, Quart. J. Econ. 112, 443–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leiserowitz, A.: 2004, ‘Surveying the Impact of “The Day After Tomorrow”’, Environment 46, 23–44.Google Scholar
  25. Leiserowitz, A. (this volume) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9.Google Scholar
  26. Linville, P. W., and Fischer G. W.: 1991, ‘Preferences for separating and combining events: A social application of prospect theory and the mental accounting model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loewenstein, G. and Elster, J. (eds.): 1992, Choice Over Time. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Loewenstein G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., Welch, E.: 2001, ‘Risk as feelings’, Psychol. Bull. 127, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luce, R. D. and Weber, E. U.: 1986, ‘An axiomatic theory of conjoint, expected risk’, J. Math. Psychol. 30, 188–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McClure, S. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G., and Cohen, J.D.: 2004, ‘Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards’, Science 306, 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mischel, W., Grusec, J., and Masters, J. C.: 1969, ‘Effects of expected delay time on the subjective value of rewards and punishments’, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 11, 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O'Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., and Fisher, A.: 1998, ‘The curious impact of knowledge about climate change on risk perceptions and willingness to sacrifice’, Risk Dec. Policy 3(2), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O'Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., and Fisher, A.: 1999, ‘Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change’, Risk Anal. 19, 461–471.Google Scholar
  34. O'Donoghue, T. and Rabin, M.: 1999, ‘Doing It Now or Later’, Am. Econ. Rev. 89, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palmer, C. G. S.: 1996, ‘Risk perception: An empirical study of the relationship between world view and the risk construct’, Risk Anal. 16, 717–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J.: 1993, The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Peters, E. and Slovic, P.: 1996, ‘The role of affect and worldview as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power’, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26, 1427–1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Peters, E. and Slovic, P.: 2000, ‘The springs of action: Affective and analytical information processing in choice’, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 1465–1475.Google Scholar
  39. Rottenstreich, Y. and Hsee, C. K.: 2001, ‘Money, kisses, and electric shocks: An affective psychology of risk’, Psychol. Sci. 12, 185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sethi-Iyengar, S., Huberman, G., and Jiang, W.: 2004, ‘How much choice is too much? Contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. In O. S. Mitchell and S. P. Utkus (Eds.), Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance. Part I. Research on Decision-Making Under Uncertainty 83–96, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sinaceur, M. and Heath, C.: 2004, ‘Emotional and deliberative reactions to a public crisis: Mad Cow Disease in France’, Psychol. Sci. in press.Google Scholar
  42. Sloman, S. A.: 1996, ‘The empirical case for two systems of reasoning’, Psychol. Bull. 119(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slovic, P.: 1987, ‘Perception of risk’, Science 236, 280–285.Google Scholar
  44. Slovic, P.: 1995, ‘The construction of preference’, Am. Psychol. 50, 364–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slovic, P.: 1997, Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In: M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, and K. Wade-Benzoni (eds.), Psychological Perspectives to Environmental and Ethical Issues in Management (pp. 277–313) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Slovic, P.: 1999, ‘Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield’, Risk Anal. 19(4), 689–701.Google Scholar
  47. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D. G.: 2002b, ‘Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics’, J. Socio-Econ. 31(4), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S.: 1986, The psychometric study of risk perception. In: V. T. Covello, J. Menkes, and J. Mumpower (eds.), Risk Evaluation and Management. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sunstein, C. (this volume), ‘Precautions against what? The availability heuristic, global warming, and cross-cultural risk perceptions’, Climatic Change.Google Scholar
  50. Trope, Y., and Liberman, N.: 2003, ‘Temporal construal’, Psychol. Rev. 110, 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D.: 1992, ‘Advances in prospect theory, cumulative representation of uncertainty’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.Google Scholar
  52. Weber, E. U.: 1997, Perception and expectation of climate change: Precondition for economic and technological adaptation. In: Max Bazerman, David Messick, Ann. Tenbrunsel, and Kimberley Wade-Benzoni (eds.), Psychological Perspectives to Environmental and Ethical Issues in Management (pp. 314–341), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  53. Weber, E. U.: 2001a, ‘Personality and risk taking. In N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 11274–11276), Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Limited.Google Scholar
  54. Weber, E. U.: 2001b, Decision and choice: Risk, empirical studies. In N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 13347–1335 1), Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Limited.Google Scholar
  55. Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R., and Betz, N.: 2002, ‘A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors’, J. Behav. Dec. Mak. 15, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weber, E. U. and Johnson, E. J.: 2006, Constructing preferences from memory. In: Lichtenstein, S., and Slovic, P.: (eds.), The Construction of Preference. New York NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Weber, E. U., Johnson, E. J., Milch, K., Chang, H., Brodscholl, J., and Goldstein, D.: 2006, Asymmetries in discounting in intertemporal choice: A query theory account. Working Paper, Center for the Decision Sciences, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  58. Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., and Blais, A.-R.: 2004, ‘Predicting risk-sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation’, Psychol. Rev. 111, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yechiam, E., Barron, G., and Erev. I.: 2004, ‘The role of personal experience in contributing to different patterns of response to rare terrorist attacks’, J. Conflict Res., in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elke U. Weber
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Research on Environmental DecisionsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations