Abstract
Over the past two decades, scientific views of a strong sociocultural variability of risk perception and risk acceptance have gained prominence in the social sciences, including technology assessment. However, many of the sociocultural theories of technological risk bearing ignore the experimental fact that the observed variability of risk attitudes is, to some considerable extent, not socioculturally contingent, but fits into a frequent and recurrent pattern known as the Allais paradox. This chapter outlines a recently developed approach to decision making under uncertainty which combines principles of non-linear utility theory with those of stochastic dynamic processes. The approach proves instructive when employed in the analysis of the observed variation in technological risk acceptance. The analysis includes applications to basic problems of risk assessment such as voluntary and involuntary risk bearing, aversion to risks with very low probabilities, but large potentials for damage, and observed social attitudes toward hazardous technologies.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Allais M, Hagen O (eds) (1979) Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox. Reidel,Dordrecht
Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley
Edwards W (ed) (1992) Utility theories: measurements and applications. Kluwer, Boston
Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL (1981) Acceptable risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fishburn PC (1982) The foundations of expected utility. Reidel, Dordrecht
Fishburn PC (1988) Nonlinear preference and utility theory. Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore
French S (1986) Decision theory. Ellis Horwood, Chichester
Fritzsche AF (1986) Wie sicher leben wir? Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Köln
Geiger G (2001) On the statistical foundations of non-linear preference theory. European
Journal of Operational Research (in press). Also preliminary paper presented to the Symposium on Modelling Choice, Zentrum für Interdisziplinäre Forschung (ZIF), Bielefeld,Germany, March 2000
Harless DW, Camerer CF (1994) The predictive utility of generalised expected utility theories.Economet 62:1251 -1289
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Economet 47:763–791
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives. Wiley, New York
Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) (1992) Theories of risk. Praeger, New York
Machina MJ (1987) Decision-making in the presence of risk. Science 236: 537–543
Marris C, Langford IH, O’Riordan T (1998) A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Anal 18: 635–647
Mine H, Osaki S (1970) Markovian decision processes. Elsevier, New York
Okrent D (1981) Industrial risks. Proc R Soc London A376: 133–148
Rayner S, Cantor R (1987) How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Anal 7: 3–10
Roberts FS (1976) Discrete mathematical models. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Rowe WD (1977) An anatomy of risk. Wiley, New York
Royal Society Study Group (1992) Risk: analysis, perception and management. The Royal Society, London
Schneeweiss H (1966) Entscheidungskriterien bei Ungewissheit. Springer, Berlin
Schoemaker PJH (1980) Experiments on decisions under risk. Nijhoff, Boston
Sinn HW (1980) Ökonomische Entscheidungen bei Ungewissheit. Mohr, Tübingen. English edn (1983) Economic decisions under uncertainty. North-Holland, Amsterdam
Stallen PJM, Geerts R, Vrijling HK (1996) Three conceptions of quantified societal risk. Risk Anal 16: 635–644
Starr C (1969) Social benefits vs technological risk. Science 165: 1232–1238
Starr C, Rudman R, Whipple C (1976) Philosophical basis for risk analysis. Ann Rev Energy 1:629–662
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In: Hogarth RM,Reder WM (eds) Rational choice. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 67–94
Waller RA, Covello V (eds) 1984 Low-probability, high-consequence risk analysis. Plenum,New York
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Geiger, G. (2001). A Dynamic Account of Rational Decision Making under Uncertainty: The Case of Risk Assessment in Hazardous Technological Systems. In: Matthies, M., Malchow, H., Kriz, J. (eds) Integrative Systems Approaches to Natural and Social Dynamics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56585-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56585-4_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-62526-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-56585-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive