Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Risk Theory pp 677–691Cite as

The Role of Feelings in Perceived Risk

  • Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of key conceptualizations of and evidence for the role of feelings in perceived risk. Influence from feelings in judgment and decision making was first recognized nearly three decades ago. More recent work has developed models that generalize the mechanisms by which feelings operate. Feelings may play multiple roles in judgment and decision processes, including providing information, enabling rapid information processing, directing attention to relevant aspects of the problem, facilitating abstract thought and communication, and helping people to determine social meaning and to act morally. Feelings may be anticipated or experienced immediately and either integral (attached) to mental representations of the decision problem or incidental (unrelated), arising from moods or metacognitive processes. A rich repertoire of psychological concepts related to risk, such as appraisal and memory, can be used to help explain the mechanisms by which affect and analysis might combine in judgment and decision making. Phenomena such as psychophysical numbing, probability neglect, scope insensitivity, and the misattribution of incidental affect all provide empirical support, albeit fragmented, for the important influence of feelings. Future research needs to utilize multiple dependent variables and methodological approaches to provide convergent evidence for and development of more sophisticated descriptive and predictive models. An additional direction for future research is to develop tools that help risk communicators and risk mangers to address complex, multidimensional risk problems.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   599.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   849.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baron J (1997) Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. J Risk Uncertainty 14(3):301–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron RS, Inman MB et al (1992) Emotion and superficial social processing. Motiv Emotion 16:323–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechara A, Damasio A (2005) The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games Econ Behav 52:336–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechara A, Damasio AR et al (1994) Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 50:7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechara A, Damasio H et al (1997) Decision advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275:1293–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper Res 30:961–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benthin A, Slovic P et al (1995) Adolescent health-threatening and health-enhancing behaviors: a study of word association and imagery. J Adolesc Health 17:143–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berns GS, Chappelow J et al (2006) Neurobiological substrates of dread. Science 312:754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodenhausen GV (1993) Emotions, arousal, and stereotype-based discrimination: a heuristic model of affect and stereotyping, Affect, cognition, and stereotyping. Academic, San Diego, pp 13–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik E (1952) The conceptual framework of psychology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabanac M (1992) Pleasure: the common currency. J Theor Biol 155:173–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clore GL, Huntsinger JR (2007) How emotions information judgment and regulate thought. Trends Cogn Sci 11:393–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly T, Butler D (2006) Regret in economic and psychological theories of choice. J Behav Decis Mak 19:139–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damasio AR (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio A (1999) The feeling of what happens. Harcourt, Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Denes-Raj V, Epstein S (1994) Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 66:819–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein S (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol 49:709–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellows LK, Farah MJ (2005) Different underlying impairments in decision making following ventromedial and dorsolateral frontal lobe damage in humans. Cereb Cortex 15:58–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetherstonhaugh D, Slovic P et al (1997) Insensitivity to the value of human life: a study of psychophysical numbing. J Risk Uncertainty 14(3):282–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane M, Holup J (2006) Risk as value: combining affect and analysis in risk judgments. J Risk Res 9(2):141–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Satterfield T (2005) Risk as narrative values: a theoretical framework for facilitating the biotechnology debate. Int J Biotechnol 7(1–3):128–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Alhakami A et al (2000a) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Slovic P et al (2000b) Public perception of the risk of blood transfusion. Transfusion 40:1017–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Slovic P et al (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgas JP (1992) Affect in social judgments and decisions: a multiprocess model. In: Zanna M (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic, San Diego, pp 227–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson BL (1998) What good are positive emotions? J Gen Psychol 2:300–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich J, Barnes P et al (1999) Psychophysical numbing: when lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase. J Consum Psychol 8:277–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijda NH (1988) The laws of emotion. Am Psychol 43:349–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijda NH, Kuipers P et al (1989) Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(2):212–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleicher F, Petty RE (1992) Expectations of reassurance influence the nature of fear-stimulated attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 28:86–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickx L, Vlek C et al (1989) Relative importance of scenario information and frequency information in the judgment of risk. Acta Psychol 72:41–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins ET (1987) Self-discrepancy–a theory relating self and affect. Psychol Rev 94:319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee CK (1996) The evaluability hypothesis: an explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 67(3):247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee C, Rottenstreich Y (2004) Music, pandas, and muggers: on the affective psychology of value. J Exp Psychol 133(1):23–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen AM (1997) Positive affect and decision making. In: Goldstein WM, Hogarth RM (eds) Research on judgment and decision making: currents, connections, and controversies. Cambridge University, New York, pp 509–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen AM (2000) Some perspectives on positive affect and self-regulation. Psychol Inq 11(3):184–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen AM, Geva N (1987) The influence of positive affect on acceptable level of risk: the person with a large canoe has a large worry. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 39:145–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith H (2001) Modeling stigma: an empirical analysis of nuclear images of nevada. In: Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther H (eds) Risk, media and stigma. Earthscan, London, pp 107–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenni KE, Loewenstein G (1997) Explaining the “identifiable victim effect”. J Risk Uncertainty 14(3):235–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson EJ, Tversky A (1983) Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:20–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson M, Lakoff G (2002) Why cognitive linguistics requires embodied realism. Cogn Linguistics 13(3):245–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM (2008) Two conceptions of emotion in risk regulation. U Penn Law Rev 156:741–766

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan DM, Slovic P et al (2007) Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation. George Washington University Legal Studies, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2000) Experienced utility and objective happiness: a moment-based approach. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) Choices, values, and frame. Cambridge University Press and the Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 673–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice. Am Psychol 58(9):697–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut T, Ritov I (2005) The “Identifiable Victim” effect: an identified group, or just a single individual? J Behav Decis Mak 18:157–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Change 77:45–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS, Keltner D (2000) Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cogn Emotion 14:473–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS, Keltner D (2001) Fear, anger, and risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:146–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM et al (2003) Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: a national field experiment. Psychol Sci 14(2):144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF (1987) Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption. Econ J 97:666–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein G, Lerner JS (2003) The role of affect in decision making. In: Davidson R, Goldsmith H, Scherer K (eds) Handbook of affective science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 619–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF, Weber EU et al (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 92:805–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie DM, Worth LT (1989) Processing deficits and the mediation of positive affect in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maia TV, McClelland JL (2004) A reexamination of the evidence for the somatic marker hypothesis: what participants really know in the Iowa gambling ask. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:16075–16080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier BP, Robinson MD (2004) Why the sunny side is up. Psychol Sci 15(4):243–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier BP, Robinson MD et al (2004) Why good guys wear white: automatic inferences about stimulus valence based on color. Psychol Sci 15:82–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers BA (2000) Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychol Bull 126(6):910–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowrer OH (1960) Learning theory and behavior. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peters E (2006) The functions of affect in the construction of preferences. In: Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (eds) The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 454–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister H-R, Böhm G (2008) The multiplicity of emotions: a framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgem Decis Mak 3(1):5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham MT (2004) The logic of feeling. J Consum Psychol 14:360–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham MT (2007) Emotion and rationality: a critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence. Rev Gen Psychol 11(2):155–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham MT, Cohen JB et al (2001) Affect monitoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. J Consum Res 28:167–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior M (1998) Economic valuation and environmental values. Environ Values 7:423–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyna VF (2004) How people make decisions that involve risk. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 13(2):60–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ (1995) Fuzzy-trace theory: an interim synthesis. Learn Individ Differ 7:1–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ et al (2003) Memory, development, and rationality: an integrative theory of judgment and decision-making. In: Schneider S, Shanteau J (eds) Emerging perspectives on decision research. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 201–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeser S (2006) The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Saf Sci 44:689–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeser S (2010) Emotional reflection about risks. In: Roeser S (ed) Emotions and risky technologies. Springer, New York, 5, pp 231–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeser S et al (2009) The relation between cognition and affect in moral judgments about risk. In: Asveld L, Roeser S (eds) The ethics of technological risks. Earthscan, London, pp 181–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottenstreich Y, Hsee C (2001) Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol Sci 12(3):185–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Slovic S (2004) What’s nature worth? Narrative expressions of environmental values. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Slovic P et al (2001) Risk lived, stigma experienced. In: Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther H (eds) Risk, media and stigma. Earthscan, London, pp 68–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N (1990) Feelings as information: informational and motivational functions of affective states. In: Sorrentino RM, Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of social behavior. Guilford, New York, pp 527–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N (2004) Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. J Consum Psychol 14:332–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N, Clore GL (1983) Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: information and directive functions of affective states. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:513–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N, Clore GL (1988) How do I feel about it? Informative functions of affective states. In: Fiedler K, Forgas J (eds) Affect, cognition, and social behavior. Hogrefe International, Toronto, pp 44–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman SA (1996) The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 119(1):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (ed) (2010) The feeling of risk: new perspectives on risk perception. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Flynn J et al (1991) Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254:1603–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML et al (2002) The affect heuristic. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Intuitive judgment: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 397–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Small DA, Loewenstein G (2005) The devil you know: the effects of identifiability on punitiveness. J Behav Decis Mak 18:311–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small DA, Loewenstein G et al (2007) Sympathy and callousness: the impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 102:143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern P, Dietz T (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50(3):65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens SS (1975) Psychophysics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2007) On the divergent American reactions to terrorism and climate change. Colum L Rev 503:503–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Trepel C, Fox CR et al (2005) Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk. Cogn Brain Res 23:34–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Västfjäll D, Peters E et al (2008) Affect, risk perception and future optimism after the tsunami disaster. Judgem Decis Mak 3:1

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber EU, Hsee CK (1999) Models and mosaics: investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference. Psychon Bull Rev 6(4):611–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber EU, Johnson EJ (2006) Constructing preferences from memory. In: Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (eds) Construction of preferences. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener DT, Petty RE (1994) Mood management across affective states: the hedonic contingency hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol 66:1034–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RS, Arvai JL (2006) When less is more: how affect influences preferences when comparing low- and high-risk options. J Risk Res 9(2):165–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung CWM, Wyer RS (2004) Affect, appraisal, and consumer judgment. J Consum Res 31:412–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc RB (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. Am Psychol 35:151–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeelenberg M, van Dijk WW et al (2000) On bad decisions and disconfirmed expectancies: the psychology of regret and disappointment. Cogn Emotion 14:521–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeelenberg M, Nelissen RMA et al (2008) On emotion specificity in decision making: why feeling is for doing. Judgem Decis Mak 3(1):18–27

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. East-West Center, 1601 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI, 96848, USA

    Prof. Melissa L. Finucane

Authors
  1. Prof. Melissa L. Finucane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa L. Finucane .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Sabine Roeser

  2. Philosophy Department, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Sabine Roeser

  3. Human Technology Center, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Rafaela Hillerbrand

  4. Department of Plant Physiology and Forest Genetics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

    Per Sandin

  5. Section for Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Martin Peterson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry

Finucane, M.L. (2012). The Role of Feelings in Perceived Risk. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_26

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1432-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1433-5

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation