Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strength of belief and risk

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to review work on subjective probability and strength of belief, in particular with reference to situations involving a high degree of risk. Work concerned mostly with cognitive limitations and shortcomings is discussed and some implications for societal responses to risky technology are offered. It is concluded that there is, in the literature on subjective probability, a lack of work on small probabilities and on the emotional influence of belief formation to be expected in situations that are related to large social values.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, N. H. and Jacobson, A. (1965). “Effect of stimulus inconsistency and discounting instructions in personality impression formation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2: 531–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. E. (1951). “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment,” in Geutskow, H., ed., Groups, Leadership and Men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, M. (1973). “On the subjective probability of compound events,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9: 396–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrager, S. M., Judd, B. R. and North, D. W. (1976). “The Economic and Social Costs of Coal and Nuclear Electric Generation.” Report prepared for National Science Foundation, Office of the Sciences Adviser, Washington, D.C.

  • Beach, B. H. (1975). “Expert judgment about uncertainty: Bayesian decision making in realistic settings,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14: 10–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, B. H. (1974). “A note on the intrasubject similarity of subjective probabilities obtained by estimates and by bets,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11: 250–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, L. R. and Phillips, L. D. (1967). “Subjective probabilities inferred from estimates and bets,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75: 354–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, L. R., Wise, J. A. and Barclay, S. (1970). “Sample proportions and subjective probability revisions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5: 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betaque, N. E. and Gorry, A. (1971). “Automating judgmental decision making for a serious medical problem,” Management Science, B 17: 421–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branthwaite, A. (1974). “A note on comparing three measures of subjective probability, their validity and reliability,” Acta Psychologica, 38: 337–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments, 2nd edition, Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, L. J. and Chapman, J. P. (1967). “Genesis of popular but erroneous psychodiagnostic observations,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72: 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. and Cheswick, E. J. (1970). “The doctrine of psychological chances,” British Journal of Psychology, 61: 323–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. and Hansel, C. M. (1957). “The nature of decisions in gambling: Equivalence of single and compound subjective probabilities,” Acta Psychologica, 13: 357–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuCharme, W. M. and Donnell, M. L. (1973). “Intrasubject comparison of four response modes for ‘subjective probability’ assessment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10: 108–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1968). “Conservatism in Human Information Processing,” in Kleinmuntz, B., ed., Formal Representation of Human Judgment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1962). “Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing,” Human Factors, 4: 59–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1954). “The theory of decision making,” Psychological Bulletin, 51: 380–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, D. (1963). “Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms: A reply,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 77: 336–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, D. (1961). “Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75: 643–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. (1975). “Perception of Randomness.” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Psychology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1978). “Behavioral Aspects of Cost-Benefit Analysis.” Paper read at a symposium on “Impacts and risks of energy strategies: Their analysis and role in management,” Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Beijer Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (September).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1977). “Cost benefit analysis and the art of motorcycle maintenance,” Policy Sciences, 8: 177–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. and Beyth, R. (1975). “‘I knew it would happen’. Remembered probabilities of once-future things,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 13: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Combs, B. and Read, S. (1976). “How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits,” Eugene, Oregon: Decision Research Report, 76–1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glimell, H. R. and Holmgren, M. (1975). “Cognitive Style, Problem Solving Preference and Attitude to Computer Technology,” Göteborg Psychological Reports, 5: No. 21.

  • Goldberg, M. A. (1975). “On the inefficiency of being efficient,” Environment and Planning, 7: 921–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goude, G. (1977). “Man—a Biological Being or a Technological Mistake?” Report 4–77, The Project Risk Generation and Risk Assessment in a Social Perspective, Department of Psychology, University of Göteborg, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. M. and Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (1976). “Training Probability Assessors: An Experimental Paradigm for the Basic Statistical Concepts,” in Pham Huu Tri, M. and Ponssard, J. P., eds., Théorie de la Décision et Applications. Paris: Fondation National pour l'Enseignement de la Gestion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (1975). “Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective probability distributions,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70: 271–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, W. C. (1972). “Compounding uncertainty from internal sources,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95: 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1974). “Methods for quantifying subjective probabilities and multiattribute utilities,” Decision Sciences, 5: 432–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, F. A. and Peterson, C. R. (1973). “Psychological effects of proper scoring rules,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9: 307–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1977). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Paper read at a workshop on Risk Assessment and Evaluation, Eugene, Oregon (January).

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973). “On the psychology of prediction,” Psychological Review, 80: 237–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1972). “Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness,” Cognitive Psychology, 3: 430–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhnreuter, H. (1976). “Limited knowledge and insurance protection,” Public Policy, 24: 227–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1975). “The illusion of control,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32: 311–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S. and Slovic, P. (1973). “Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101: 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B. and Phillips, T. (1977). “Calibrations of Probabilities: The State of the Art,” in Jungermann, H. and Zeeuw, G. de, eds., Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, D. F. and Clarkson, J. K. (1973). “Conservatism as non-Bayesian performance: A reply to DeSwart,” Acta Psychologica, 37: 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, D. F. and Clarkson, J. K. (1972). “An explanation of conservatism in the book-bag-and-pokerchips situation,” Acta Psychologica, 36: 145–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. G. and Thomas, H. (1976). The Anatomy of Decisions. Hammondsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. G. and Thomas, H. (1975). “Measuring uncertainty,” Omega, 3: 657–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, A. H. (1970). “Scoring rules in probability assessment and evaluation,” Acta Psychologica, 34: 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (1974). “The role of experts in a nuclear siting controversy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 30: 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahner, P. D. (1976). “A psychological perspective of the nuclear energy controversy.” Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Analysis Research Memorandum, RM-76–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C. R. and Beach, L. R. (1967). “Man as an intuitive statistician,” Psychological Bulletin, 68: 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. and Wright, C. N. (1977). “Cultural Differences in Viewing Uncertainty and Assessing Probabilities,” in Jungermann, H. and Zeeuw, G. de, eds., Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitz, G. F. (1974). “Subjective Probability Distributions for Imperfectly Known Quantities,” in Gregg, L. W., ed., Knowledge and Cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitz, G. F. (1970). “On the processing of information: Probabilistic and otherwise,” Acta Psychologica, 34: 201–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schum, D. A., Du Charme, W. M. and DePitts, K. E. (1973). “Research on human multistage probabilistic inference processes,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10: 318–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvidge, J. (1975). “A Three-Step Procedure for Assigning Probabilities to Rare Events,” in Wendt, D. and Vlek, C., eds., Utility, Subjective Probability, and Human Decision Making. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1978). “Beliefs and Values as Attitude Components.” Paper read at an International Symposium on Social Psychophysics, Mannheim, Germany (October).

  • Sjöberg, L. (1976). “Self-Esteem and Information Processing.” Göteborg Psychological Reports, 6: No. 14.

  • Sjöberg, L. and Johnson, T. (1978). “Trying to give up smoking: A study of volitional break-downs,” Addictive Behaviors, 3: 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. and Persson, L. O. (1977). “A Study of Attempts by Obese Patients to Regulate Eating.” Göteborg Psychological Reports, 7, No. 12.

  • Sjöberg, L. and Samsonowitz, V. (1978). “Volitional problems in trying to quit smoking,” Scandanavian Journal of Psychology, 19: 205–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L., Samsonowitz, V. and Olsson, G. (1978). “Volitional Problems in Alcohol Abuse.” Göteborg Psychological Reports, 8, No. 5.

  • Sjöberg, L., Torell, G. and Adriansson, L. (1978). “The Structure of Energy Attitudes and Beliefs: An Interview Study.” Paper read at a symposium on “Impacts and risks of energy strategies: Their analysis and role in management,” Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Beijer Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (September).

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1966). “Cue consistency and cue utilization in judgment,” American Journal of Psychology, 79: 427–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. (1971). “Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment,“ Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6: 649–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1977). “Behavioral decision theory,” Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1976a). “Cognitive Processes and Societal Risk Taking,” in Carroll, J. S. and Payne, J. W., eds., Cognition and Social Behavior. Potomac, Md., L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1976b). “The Certainty Illusion.” Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin, 16, No. 4.

  • Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. and Fischhoff, B. (1978). “Images of Disaster: Perception and Acceptance of Risks from Nuclear Power.” Paper read at a symposium on “Impacts and risks of energy strategies: Their analysis and role in management,” Swedish Academy of Sciences, The Beijer Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (September).

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Combs, B. and Layman, M. (1976). “Misperceived Frequencies of Low Probability, Lethal Events.” Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin, 16, No. 2.

  • Spetzler, C. S. and Staël von Holstein, C.-A. (1972). “Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis.” Technical Report, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C. (1969). “Social benefit versus technological risk,” Science, 165: 1232–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1978a). “Cognitive processes in decision making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, in press.

  • Svenson, O. (1978b). “Risks of road transportation in a psychological perspective,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10: 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1973). “Analysis of Strategies in Subjective Probability Inferences as Evidenced in Continuous Verbal Reports and Numerical Responses.” Reports from the Psychological Laboratories, University of Stockholm, Sweden, No. 396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swets, J. A. (1964). Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Observers. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thedéen, T. (1977). “Presentation of Risk. (Presentation av Risk).” The Project Risk Generation and Risk Assessment in a Social Perspective, Department of Psychology, University of Göteborg, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: Century.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1975). “Assessing uncertainty,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36 B: 148–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). “Judgment under certainty: Heuristics and biases,” Science, 185: 1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973). “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 5: 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1971). “The belief in the law of small numbers,” Psychological Bulletin, 76: 105–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, T. S. (1977). “Measurement and Interpretation of Beliefs,” in Jungermann, H. and Zeeuw, G. de, eds., Decision making and Change in Human Affairs. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, G. E. and Edwards, W. (1975). “Misaggregation Explains Conservative Inference about Normally Distributed Populations.” Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, SSRI Research Report, 75-11.

  • Winkler, R. L. and Murphy, A. H. (1973). “Experiments in the laboratory and the real world,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10: 252–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. L. and Murphy, A. H. (1968). “lsGood’ probability assessors,” Journal of Applied Meteorology, 7: 751–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, J. A. (1970). “Estimates and scaled judgments of subjective probabilities,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5: 85–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G. N. and Phillips, L. D. (1979). “Individual Differences in Probabilistic Thinking.” in Sjøberg, L., Tyszka, T. and Wise, J., eds., Decision Processes and Decision Analysis. Lund, Sweden: Doxa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F. and Zukowski, L. G. (1975). “The Anatomy and Consequences of Ambiguity in Decision Making.” MMPP 75-2, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden

    Lennart Sjöber

Authors
  1. Lennart Sjöber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This study was supported by a grant from the Committee for Future Oriented Research, Stockholm, Sweden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sjöber, L. Strength of belief and risk. Policy Sci 11, 39–57 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143836

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143836

Keywords

Search

Navigation