Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 301–309 | Cite as

Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation



Subjects were less willing to pay for government medical insurance for diseases when the number of people who could not be cured was higher, holding constant the number who could be cured. In a second experiment, willingness to pay (from a hypothetical government windfall) for risk reduction was unaffected by whether the risk was described in terms of percentage or number of lives saved, even though subjects knew that the risks in question differed in prevalence. These results are consistent with the findings of Fetherstonhaugh et al., Jenni and Loewenstein, and others. I suggest that these results can be explained in terms of a general tendency to confuse proportions and differences, a confusion that is analogous to other confusions of quantitative dimensions in children, adults, the news media, and perhaps even the epidemiological literature.

relative risk value of life contingent valuation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baron, J., & J. Greene (1996). Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, J., G. Lawson, & L. S. Siegel (1975). Effects of training and set size on children's judgments of number and length. Developmental Psychology, 11, 583–588.Google Scholar
  3. Denes-Raj, V., & S. Epstein (1994). Conflict between experiential and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819–827.Google Scholar
  4. Fetherstonhaugh, D., P. Slovic, S. Johnson, & J. Friedrich (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.Google Scholar
  5. Gardner, P., & B. L. Hudson (1996). Advance report of final mortality statistics, 1993. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 44(7), supplement. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
  6. Hershey, J. C., & J. Baron (1987). Clinical reasoning and cognitive processes. Medical Decision Making, 7, 203–211.Google Scholar
  7. Jenni, K. E., & G. Loewenstein (1997). Explaining the “identifiable victim effect.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.Google Scholar
  8. Jones-Lee, M. W., G. Loomes, & P. R. Philips (1995). Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: Contingent valuation vs.standard gambles. Oxford Economic Papers, 47, 676 ff.Google Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D., & A. Tversky (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.Google Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., & A. Tversky (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  11. Kemp, S., & K. Willetts (1995). Rating the value of government-funded services: comparison of methods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 1–21.Google Scholar
  12. McDaniels, T. L. (1988). Comparing expressed and revealed preferences for risk reduction: Different hazards and question frames. Risk Analysis, 8, 593–604.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, D. T., W. Turnbull, & C. McFarland (1990). Counterfactual thinking and social perception: Thinking about what might have been. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, pp. 305–331. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Piaget, J., & B. Inhelder (1975). The origin of the idea of chance in children. New York: Norton (originally published 1951).Google Scholar
  15. Stone, E. R., J. F. Yates, & A. M. Parker (1994). Risk communication: Absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 387–408.Google Scholar
  16. Unger, P. (1996). Living high and letting die: Our illusion of innocence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations