Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 103–120 | Cite as

Making Low Probabilities Useful

  • Howard Kunreuther
  • Nathan Novemsky
  • Daniel Kahneman


This paper explores how people process information on low probability-high consequence negative events and what it will take to get individuals to be sensitive to the likelihood of these types of accidents or disasters. In a set of experiments, information is presented to individuals on the likelihood of serious accidents from a chemical facility. Comparisons are made with other risks, such as fatalities from automobile accidents, to see whether laypersons can determine the relative safety of different plants. We conclude that fairly rich context information must be available for people to be able to judge differences between low probabilities. In particular, it appears that one needs to present comparison scenarios that are located on the probability scale to evoke people's own feelings of risk. The concept of evaluability recently introduced by Hsee and his colleagues provides a useful explanation of these findings.

low probabilities insurance field experiment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Camerer, Colin and Howard Kunreuther. (1989). “Decision Processes for Low Probability Events: Policy Implications,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8, 565–592.Google Scholar
  2. Davies, Clarence and Jan Mazurek. (1998). Pollution Control in the United States. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  3. Er, Jwee Ping, Howard Kunreuther, and Isadore Rosenthal. (1998). “Utilizing Third Party Inspections for Preventing Major Chemical Accidents,” Risk Analysis 18, 145–154.Google Scholar
  4. Hogarth, Robin and Howard Kunreuther. (1995). “Decision Making Under Ignorance: Arguing with Yourself,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 10, 15–36.Google Scholar
  5. Hsee, Chris. (1996). “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation of Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 46, 247–257.Google Scholar
  6. Hsee, Chris, Sally Blount, George Loewenstein, and Max Bazerman. (1999). “Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis,” Psychological Review 125, 576–590.Google Scholar
  7. Huber, O., R. Wider, and O. Huber. (1997). “Active Information Search and Complete Information Presentation in Naturalistic Risky Decision Tasks,” Acta Psychologica 95, 15–29.Google Scholar
  8. Kunreuther, Howard, Patrick McNulty, and Yong Kang. (2001). “Third Party Inspection as an Alternative to Command and Control Regulation.” In Kurt Deketelaere and Eric W. Orts (eds.), Environmental Contracts: Comparative Approaches to Regulatory Innovation in the United States and Europe. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  9. Magat, Wes, Kip Viscusi, and Joel Huber. (1987) “Risk-Dollar Tradeoffs, Risk Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior.” In W. Viscusi and W. Magat (eds.), Learning About Risk, p. 83–97. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. McClelland, Gary, William Schulze, and Don Coursey. (1993). “Insurance for Low-Probability Hazards: A Bimodal Response to Unlikely Events,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 95–116.Google Scholar
  11. Oberholzer-Gee, Felix. (1998). “Learning to Bear the Unbearable: Towards an Explanation of Risk Ignorance,” mimeo, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  12. Orts, Eric. (1995). “Reflexive Environmental Law,” Northwestern University Law Review 89.Google Scholar
  13. Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sara Lichtenstein. (1978). “Accident Probabilities and Seat Belt Usage: APsychological Perspective,” Accident Analysis and Prevention 10, 281–285.Google Scholar
  14. Stone, E., F. Yates, and A. Parker. (1994). “Risk Communication: Absolute versus Relative Expressions of Low-Probability Risks,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 387–408.Google Scholar
  15. Weinstein, N., K. Kolb, and B. Goldstein. (1996). “Using Time Intervals between Expected Events to Communicate Risk Magnitudes,” Risk Analysis 16, 305–398.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Kunreuther
    • 1
  • Nathan Novemsky
    • 2
  • Daniel Kahneman
    • 3
  1. 1.OPIM Department, Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia
  2. 2.School of ManagementYale UniversityNew Haven
  3. 3.Department of Psychology and Woodrow Wilson SchoolPrinceton UniversityPrinceton

Personalised recommendations