When less is more: How affect influences preferences when comparing low and high-risk options

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 165-178

  Wilson, Robyn S ^a   Arvai, Joseph L ^b,c  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Affect; Evaluability; Risk management

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; PROBLEM SOLVING; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

AFFECT; EVALUABILITY; PROBLEM CONTEXT;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 29744459445     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870500419503     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Arvai, J. L. and Gregory, R. (2003) A decision focused approach for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites, Environmental Science & Technology, 37, pp. 1469-1476.
2. Arvai, J. L., Gregory, R. and McDaniels, T. (2001) Testing a structured decision approach: Value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication, Risk Analysis, 21, pp. 1065-1076.
3. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D. and Damasio, A. R. (1997) Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy, Science, 275, pp. 1293-1294.
4. Damasio, A. R. (1994) Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (New York: Grosset/Putnam).
5. Damasio, A. R. (1996) The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex, Proceedings of The Royal Society, 351, pp. 1413-1420.
6. Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (2003) Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason, in: S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds) Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research, pp. 327-364 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
7. Gregory, R. (2000) Using stakeholder values to make smarter environmental decisions, Environment, 42, pp. 34-44.
8. Gregory, R., Arvai, J. L. and McDaniels, T. (2001) Value-focused thinking for environmental risk consultations, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 9, pp. 249-275.
9. Hsee, C. K. (1996) The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, pp. 247-257.
10. Hsee, C. K. (1998) Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, pp. 107-121.
11. Lerner, J. and Keltner, D. (2001) Fear, anger, and risk, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, pp. 146-159.
12. Loewenstein, G., Hsee, C. K., Weber, E. and Welch, N. (2001) Risk as feelings, Psychological Bulletin, 127, pp. 267-286.
13. McDaniels, T., Gregory, R., Arvai, J. L. and Chuenpagdee, R. (2003) Decision structuring as a means of alleviating embedding in environmental valuation, Ecological Economics.
14. McDaniels, T., Gregory, R. and Fields, D. (1999) Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions, Risk Analysis, 19, pp. 497-510.
15. Slovic, P. (2000) Rational actors and rational fools: The influence of affect on judgment and decision making, Roger Williams University Law Review, 6, pp. 163-212.
16. Slovic, P. (2004) What's fear got to do with it? It's affect we need to worry about, Missouri Law Review, 69, pp. 971-990.
17. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2002) The affect heuristic, in: T. Gilovich, D. Griffin & D. Kahneman (Eds) Intuitive Judgment: Heuristics and Biases, pp. 397-420 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
18. Sunstein, C. R. (2003) Terrorism and probability neglect, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, pp. 121-136.