How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2008, Vol 3, Issue 4
Abstract
Which statement conveys greater risk: “100 people die from cancer every day” or “36,500 people die from cancer every year”? In statistics where both frequencies and temporal information are used to convey risk, two theories predict opposite answers to this question. Construal level theory predicts that “100 people die from cancer every day” will be judged as more risky, while the ratio bias predicts that the equivalent “36,500 people die from cancer every year” will result in higher risk judgments. An experiment investigated which format produces higher risk ratings, and whether ratings are influenced by increasing the salience of the numerical or temporal part of the statistic. Forty-eight participants were randomly assigned to a numerical, temporal or control salience condition, and rated risk framed as number of deaths per day or per year. The year format was found to result in higher perceived risk, indicating that the ratio bias effect is dominant, but there was no effect of salience.
Authors and Affiliations
Carissa Bonner and Ben R. Newell
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677641
- DOI -
- Views 161
- Downloads 0
Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues
Previous research on anchoring has shown this heuristic to be a very robust psychological phenomenon ubiquitous across many domains of human judgment and decision-making. Despite the prevalence of anchoring effects, rese...
Choice-induced preference change and the free-choice paradigm: A clarification
Positive spreading of ratings or rankings in the classical free-choice paradigm is commonly taken to indicate choice-induced change in preferences and has motivated influential theories as cognitive dissonance theory and...
Maximizing and customer loyalty: Are maximizers less loyal?
Despite their efforts to choose the best of all available solutions, maximizers seem to be more inclined than satisficers to regret their choices and to experience post-decisional dissonance. Maximizers may therefore be...
Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality
Decades of experimental research show that some people forgo personal gains to benefit others in unilateral anonymous interactions. To explain these results, behavioral economists typically assume that people have social...
Validation of the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale in Chinese college students
Using college student samples, two studies were conducted to validate the Chinese version of the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) Scale. The results replicated important findings reported by Weber et al. (2002) in t...