Skip to main content
  • 1867 Accesses

Abstract

Identifying and quantifying risk are two of the most important activities in which risk managers engage. Research in psychology over the last four decades has taught us that these activities are extremely vulnerable to judgmental biases. People overestimate some risks and underestimate, if not overlook, others. What are the major biases that risk managers need to understand in order to exhibit expertise? And what can be done to help mitigate these biases?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Luca Celati (2004), The Dark Side of Risk Management: How People Frame Decisions in Financial Markets (London: Prentice-Hall: Financial Times);

    Google Scholar 

  2. Riccardo Rebonato (2010) Plight of the Fortune Tellers: Why We Need to Manage Financial Risk Differently (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1973), “Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive Psychology 5, 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tracy Keller (2012), “Why Do 90% of Restaurants Fail in the First Year,” Concordia St. Paul Blog & News Updates, posted June 18, csp.edu, http:// online.csp.edu/blog/business/why-do-90-of-restaurants-fail-in-the-first-year.

    Google Scholar 

  5. H. G. Parsa, John T Self, David Njite, and Tiffany King (2005), “Why Restaurants Fail,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 46 (3): 304–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Paul Slovic (1987), “Perception of Risk,” Science, New Series, 236 (4799): 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Melissa Finucane, Paul Slovic, C. K. Mertz, James Flynn, and Teresa Satterfield (2000), “Gender, Race, and Perceived Risk: The ‘White Male’ Effect,” Healthy Risk & Society 2 (2): 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, New Series, 185 (4157): 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomas Gilovich, Robert Vallone, and Amos Tversky (1985), “The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences,” Cognitive Psychology 17: 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Andrew Bocskocsky, John Ezekowitz, and Carolyn Stein (2014), “The Hot Hand: A New Approach to an Old ‘Fallacy’,” Working paper: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Neil D. Weinstein (1980), “Unrealistic Optimism about Future Life Events,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (5): 806–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stuart Oskamp (1965), “Overconfidence in Case-Study Judgments,” Journal of Consulting Psychology 29 (3): 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Peter C. Wason (1966), “Reasoning,” in New Horizons in Psychology, ed. B. Foss (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books), 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ellen J. Langer (1975), “The Illusion of Control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (2): 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gerd Gigerenzer, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, and Elke Kurz-Milcke (2007), “Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8 (2): 53–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 2016 Hersh Shefrin

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shefrin, H. (2016). Biases and Risk. In: Behavioral Risk Management. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137445629_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics