Overreaction to Fearsome Risks

Abstract

When risks threaten, cognitive mechanisms bias people toward action or inaction. Fearsome risks are highly available. The availability bias tells us that this leads people to overestimate their frequency. Therefore, they also overreact to curtail the likelihood or consequences of such risks. More generally, fear can paralyze efforts to think clearly about risks. We draw on a range of environmental risks to show the following: (1) Fear leads us to neglect probability of occurrence; (2) As fearsome environmental risks are usually imposed by others (as externalities), indignation stirs excess reaction; (3) We often misperceive or miscalculate such risks. Two experiments demonstrate probability neglect when fearsome risks arise: (a) willingness-to-pay to eliminate the cancer risk from arsenic in water (described in vivid terms) did not vary despite a 10-fold variation in risk; (b) the willingness-to-accept price for a painful but non dangerous electric shock did not vary between a 1 and 100% chance. Possible explanations relate to the role of the amygdala in impairing cognitive brain function. Government and the law, both made by mortals and both responding to public pressures, similarly neglect probabilities for fearsome risks. Examples relating to shark attacks, Love Canal, alar and terrorism are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Afifi AK, Bergman RA (2005) Functional neuroanatomy: text and atlas. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, p p 292

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alkahami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14: 1085–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bechara A et al (2001) Decision-making deficits, linked to a dysfunctional ventromedial prefrontal cortex, revealed in alcohol and stimulant abusers. Neuropsychologia 39(4): 376–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Elster J (1983) Explaining technical change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fuster JM (2001) The prefrontal cortex—an update: time is of the essence. Neuron 30(2): 319–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gibbs LM (1998) Love canal: the story continues. New Society Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hamilton J, Viscusi WK (1999) Calculating risks: the spatial and political dimensions of hazardous waste policy. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  8. Johansson-stenman D (2008) Mad cows, terrorism and junk food: should public policy reflect perceived or objective risks?. J Health Econ 27: 234–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson E, Hershey J, Meszaros J et al (1993) Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J Risk Uncertain 7: 35–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuran T, Sunstein C (1999) Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanf Law Rev 51: 683–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Loewenstein G, Lerner JS (2003) The role of affect in decision making. In: Davidson R, Goldsmith H, Scherer K (eds) Handbook of affective science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 619–642

    Google Scholar 

  13. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK et al (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127: 267–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nadler R (2009) What was I thinking? Handling the hijack. Business Management 16. URL: http://www.busmanagement.com/article/What-Was-I-Thinking-Handling-the-Hijack/ (accessed April 15, 2010)

  15. Oates W (2002) The arsenic rule: a case for decentralized standard setting. Resources 147: 16–18

    Google Scholar 

  16. Patt A, Zeckhauser R (2000) Action bias and environmental decisions. J Risk Uncertain 21(1): 45–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rothschild M (2001) Terrorism and you—the real odds. Policy matters, AEI-Brookings joint center for regulatory studies. http://www.aei-brookings.org/policy/page.php?id=19#top

  18. Rottenstreich Y, Hsee C (2001) Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol Sci 12: 185–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sandman P, Weinstein ND, Hallman WK (1998) Communications to reduce risk underestimation and overestimation. Risk Decis Policy 3: 93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sunstein C (2002) Risk and reason: safety, law, and the environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sunstein C (2002) Probability neglect: emotions, worst cases, and law. Yale Law J 112: 61–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sunstein C (2007) Worst-case scenarios. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sunstein C, Zeckhauser R (2009) Dreadful possibilities, neglected probabilities. In: Michel-Kerjan E, Slovic P (eds) The irrational economist: making decisions in a dangerous world. Public Affairs Press, New York, pp 116–123

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognit Psychol 5: 207–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Viscusi WK (2000) Corporate risk analysis: a reckless act. Stanf Law Rev 52: 547–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wildavsky A (1995) But is it true? A citizen’s guide to environmental health and safety issues. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zeckhauser R, Viscusi WK (1990) Risk within reason. Science 248: 559–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Zeckhauser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sunstein, C.R., Zeckhauser, R. Overreaction to Fearsome Risks. Environ Resource Econ 48, 435–449 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9449-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Action bias
  • Availability bias
  • Biased assessment
  • Risk regulation
  • Risk perception

JEL Classification

  • D81
  • Q51
  • D61
  • H4