Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 77, Issue 1–2, pp 195–210 | Cite as

The Availability Heuristic, Intuitive Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Climate Change

  • Cass R. Sunstein
Article

Abstract

Because risks are on all sides of social situations, it is not possible to be “precautionary” in general. The availability heuristic ensures that some risks stand out as particularly salient, whatever their actual magnitude. Taken together with intuitive cost-benefit balancing, the availability heuristic helps to explain differences across groups, cultures, and even nations in the assessment of precautions to reduce the risks associated with climate change. There are complex links among availability, social processes for the spreading of information, and predispositions. If the United States is to take a stronger stand against climate change, it is likely to be a result of available incidents that seem to show that climate change produces serious and tangible harm.

Keywords

Climate Change Risk Perception Group Polarization Precautionary Principle Regulatory Failure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aronson, E. (ed.): 1995, Readings about the Social Animal, W.H. Freeman, New York, p. 150.Google Scholar
  2. Behrman, J. R., Kohler, H. P., and Watkins, S. C.: 2003, ‘Social Networks, HIV/AIDS, and Risk Perceptions’, PIER Working Paper No. 03–007. http://ssrn.com/abstract = 382844.
  3. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., and Welch, I.: 1998, ‘Learning from the behavior of others: Conformity, fads, and informational cascades’, J. Econ. Perspect. 12, 151–170.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, R.: 1985, Social Psychology, Free Press, New York, p. 224.Google Scholar
  5. Burnum, J. F.: 1987, ‘Medical practice a la mode: How medical fashions determine medical care’, N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 1220–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A.: 1982, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  7. Feigenson, N., Bailis, D. and Klein, W.: 2005, ‘Perceptions of terrorism and disease risks: A cross-national comparison’, Univ. Missouri L. Rev., forthcoming.Google Scholar
  8. Gigerenzer, G.: 2000, Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. and ABC Research Group: 1999, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Heath, C.: 1996, ‘Do people prefer to pass along good or bad news? Valence and relevance as predictors of transmission propensity’, Org. Behav. & Hum. Decis. Process 68, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heath, C., Bell, C. and Sternberg, E.: 2001, ‘Emotional selection in memes: The case of urban legends’, J. Personality & Soc. Psych. 81, 1028–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Henrich, J., Albers, W., Boyd, R., Gigerenzer, G., McCabe, K.A., Ockenfels, A. and Young, H.P.: 2001, ‘Group report: What is the role of culture in bounded rationality?’, in Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 343–360.Google Scholar
  13. Hirschleifer, D.: 1995, ‘The blind leading the blind: Social influence, fads, and informational cascades’, in Tommasi, M. and Ierulli, K. (eds.), The New Economics of Human Behavior, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 188–216.Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S.: 2002, ‘Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment’ in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. and Kahneman, D. (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 49–82.Google Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds.): 1982, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
  16. Kull, S.: 2000, ‘Americans on the Climate change Treaty’, PIPA. http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/GlobalWarming/buenos_aires_02.00.html.
  17. Kuran, T. and Sunstein, C. R.: 1999, ‘Availability cascades and risk regulation’, Stan. L. Rev. 51, 683–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loewenstein, G. and Mather, J.: 1990, ‘Dynamic processes in risk perception’, J. Risk & Uncert. 3, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Myers, D. G.: 1975, ‘Discussion-induced attitude polarization’, Hum. Relat. 28, 699–714Google Scholar
  20. Myers, D. G. and Bishop, G. D.: 1971, ‘The enhancement of dominant attitudes in group discuission’, J. Personality & Soc. Psych. 20, 386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nordhaus, W. D. and Boyer, J.: 2003, Warming the World: Economic Models of Climate change, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 161–162.Google Scholar
  22. Pidgeon N., Kasperson, R. F. and and Slovic, P.: 2003, The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  23. Posner, R. A.: 2004, Catastrophe: Risk and Response, Oxford Univ. Press, New York. Renn, O. and Rohrmann, B. (eds.): 2000, Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies, Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht and Boston.Google Scholar
  24. The Program on International Policy Attitudes, Americans on the Global Warming Treaty, available at http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/GlobalWarming/glob_warm_treaty.html at Box 15.
  25. Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O.: 2000, ‘Risk perception research: An introduction’, in Renn, O. and Rohrmann, B. (eds.), Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies, Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 11–54.Google Scholar
  26. Sherman, S. J., Cialdini, R. B., Schwartzman, D. F. and Reynolds, K. D.: 2002, ‘Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery’, in Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D. (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 98–102.Google Scholar
  27. Sjoberg, L., Kolarova, D. and Rucai, A.: 2000, ‘Risk perception in Bulgaria and Romania’ in Renn, O. and Rohrmann, B. (eds.), Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies, Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 145–184.Google Scholar
  28. Slovic, P.: 2000, The Perception of Risk, Earthscan Publ., London and Sterling, Va., p. 40.Google Scholar
  29. Sunstein, C. R.: 2005, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle, Cambridge Univ. Press, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  30. Sunstein, C. R.: 2003a, “Beyond the precautionary principle’, Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 151, 1003–1058.Google Scholar
  31. Sunstein, C. R.: 2003b, Why Societies Need Dissent, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Sunstein, C. R., Hastie, R., Payne, J. W., Schkade, D. A. and Viscusi, W. K.: 2002, Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  33. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: 1982, ‘Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases’ in Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
  34. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.: 1986, ‘Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases’, in Arkes, H.R. and Hammond, K.R. (eds.), Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 38–55.Google Scholar
  35. Viscusi, W.K. and Hirch, J.: 2005, ‘The Generational Divide in Support for Climate Change Policies: European Evidence’, Discussion Paper No. 504, Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
  36. Vogel, D.: 2003, ‘The Hare and the tortoise revisited: The new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe’, Brit. J. Pol. Sci. 33, 557–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wiener, J. B. and Rogers, M. D.: 2002, ‘Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe’, J. Risk Res. 5, 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor, Law School and Department of Political ScienceUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations