Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 26, Issue 2–3, pp 121–136 | Cite as

Terrorism and Probability Neglect

  • Cass R. Sunstein

Abstract

When strong emotions are involved, people tend to focus on the badness of the outcome, rather than on the probability that the outcome will occur. The resulting “probability neglect” helps to explain excessive reactions to low-probability risks of catastrophe. Terrorists show a working knowledge of probability neglect, producing public fear that might greatly exceed the discounted harm. As a result of probability neglect, people often are far more concerned about the risks of terrorism than about statistically larger risks that they confront in ordinary life. In the context of terrorism and analogous risks, the legal system frequently responds to probability neglect, resulting in regulation that might be unjustified or even counterproductive. But public fear is itself a cost, and it is associated with many other costs, in the form of “ripple effects” produced by fear. As a normative matter, government should reduce even unjustified fear, if the benefits of the response can be shown to outweigh the costs.

behavioral economics terrorism risk perception probability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alkahami, A.S. and P. Slovic. (1994). "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis 14, 1085–1096.Google Scholar
  2. Corso, P., J. Hammitt, and J. Graham. (2001). "Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 165–184.Google Scholar
  3. Elster, J. (1983). Explaining Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Foster, K., D. Bernstein, and P. Huber. (eds.). (1993). Phantom Risk: Scientific Inference and the Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gibbs, L.M. (1998). Love Canal: The Story Continues. New York: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Hamilton, J. and W.K. Viscusi. Calculating Risks: The Spatial and Political Dimensions of Hazardous Waste Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Harrington, M. (2002). "People's Willingness To Accept Airport Security Delays in Exchange for Lesser Risk," (unpublished manuscript, on file with author).Google Scholar
  8. Huber, P. (1983). "The Old-New Division in Risk Regulation," Virginia Law Review 69, 1025–1106.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, E.J., J. Hershey, J. Meszaros, and H. Kunreuther. (1993). "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 35–41.Google Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  11. Kunreuther, H., N. Novemsky, and Daniel Kahneman. (2001). "Making Low Probabilities Useful," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 103–120.Google Scholar
  12. Kuran, T. and C. Sunstein. (1999). "Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation," Stanford Law Review51, 683–768.Google Scholar
  13. Loewenstein, G.F., E.U. Weber, C.K. Hsee, and E.S. Welch. (2001). "Risk as Feelings," Psychological Bulletin 127, 267–286.Google Scholar
  14. Margolis, Howard. (1993). Dealing With Risk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Noll, R. and J. Krier. (1990). "Some Implications of Cognitive Psychology for Risk Regulation," Journal of Legal Studies 19, 747–779.Google Scholar
  16. Rothschild, M. (2001). "Terrorism and You—The Real Odds," Policy Matters, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, available at http://www.aei-brookings.org/policy/page.php?id=19#top.Google Scholar
  17. Rottenstreich, Y. and C. Hsee. (2001). "Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk," Psychological Science 12, 185–190.Google Scholar
  18. Sandman, P., N.D. Weinstein, and W.K. Hallman. (1998). "Communications to Reduce Risk Underestimation and Overestimation," Risk Decision and Policy 3, 93–108.Google Scholar
  19. Sandman, P., P. Miller, B. Johnson, and N.D. Weinstein. (1994). "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Peception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis 13, 589–602.Google Scholar
  20. Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. MacGregor. (2002). "The Affect Heuristic." In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, pp. 397–420.Google Scholar
  22. Slovic, P., J. Monahan, and D. MacGregor. (2000). "Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Communication: The Effect of Using Actual Cases, Providing Instructions, and Employing Probability vs. Frequency Formats," Law and Human Behavior 24, 271–296.Google Scholar
  23. Sunstein, C. (2002a). Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sunstein, C. (2002b). "Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases, and Law," Yale Law Journal 112, 61–107.Google Scholar
  25. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1974). "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," Science 185, 1124– 1131.Google Scholar
  26. Viscusi, W. Kip. (2000). "Corporate Risk Analysis: A Reckless Act?" Stanford Law Review 52, 547–597.Google Scholar
  27. Wildavsky, A. (1995). But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cass R. Sunstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Chicago Law SchoolChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations