Are risk assessments of a terrorist attack coherent?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 277-288

  Mandel, David R ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Additivity property; Coherence violations; Monotonicity; Risk assessment; Terrorism

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; TERRORISM;

HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TERRORISM;

EID: 30644465707     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.277     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ayton, P. (1997). How to be incoherent and seductive: Bookmakers' odds and support theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 99-115.
2. Beyth-Marom, R., Austin, L., Fischhoff, B., Palmgren, C., & Jacobs-Quadrel, M. (1993). Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: Adults and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 29, 549-563.
3. Brenner, L. A., & Rottenstreich, Y. (1999). Focus, repacking and the judgment of grouped hypotheses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 141-148.
4. Bruine de Bruin, W., Fischbeck, P. S., Stiber, N. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2002). What number is "fifty-fifty"?: Redistributing excessive 50% responses in elicited probabilities. Risk Analysis, 22, 713-723.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
6. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
7. Canada Department of National Defence. (2002). Risk management for CF operations (Joint doctrine manual B-GJ-005-502/FP-000). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Edwards, W. (1982). Conservatism in human information processing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 359-369). Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.
10. Fischhoff, B. (in press). Risk perception and risk communication. In D. Kamien (Ed.), The McGraw-Hill handbook of terrorism. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (2002). Risk perception and risk communication. In R. Detels, J. McEwen, R. Reaglehole, & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Oxford textbook of public health (4th ed., pp. 1105-1123). Oxford, U. K.: Oxford University Press.
12. Fischhoff, B., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (1999). Fifty-fifty = 50? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 149-167.
13. Fischhoff, B., & MacGregor, D. (1983). Judged lethality: How much people seem to know depends upon how they are asked. Risk Analysis, 3, 229-236.
14. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330-344.
15. Fox, C. R., Rogers, B., & Tversky, A. (1996). Option traders exhibit subadditive decision weights. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13, 5-19.
16. Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond "heuristics and biases." European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 83-115.
17. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.
18. Hammond, K. R. (2000). Coherence and correspondence theories in judgment and decision making. In T. Connolly, H. R. Arkes, & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed., pp. 53-65). New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 573-580.
20. Hilton, D. J., & Slugoski, B. R. (2000). Judgment and decision making in social context: Discourse processes and rational inference. In T. Connolly, H. R. Arkes, & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed., pp. 651-676). Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.
21. Hoch, S. J. (1985). Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predicting personal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 719-731.
22. Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Capelos, T., & Provost, C. (2002). The consequences of terrorism: Disentangling the effects of personal and national threat. Political Psychology, 23, 485-510.
23. Idson, L. C., Krantz, D. H., Osherson, D., & Bonini, N. (2001). The relation between probability and evidence judgment: An extension of support theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 22, 227-249.
24. Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Olsson, H. (2003). Calibration, additivity, and source independence of probability judgments in general knowledge and sensory discrimination tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92, 34-51.
25. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.
26. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11, 123-141.
27. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
28. Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L. A., & Tversky, A. (1997). The enhancement effect in probability judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 293-313.
29. Koriat, A., & Levy-Sadot, R. (2001). The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and accessibility heuristics to feelings of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 34-53.
30. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 6, 107-118.
31. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
32. Kunreuther, H. (2002). Risk analysis and risk management in an uncertain world. Risk Analysis, 22, 655-664.
33. LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 77-92.
34. Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144-150.
35. Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411-429.
36. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
37. Macchi, L., Osherson, D., & Krantz, D. H. (1999). A note on superadditive probability judgment. Psychological Review, 106, 210-214.
38. Mandel, D. R. (2005). When equiprobable (even identical) events are judged heteroprobable: The interactive effect of framing and evidence on subjective probability. Manuscript submitted for publication.
39. Moore, D. A., & Kim, T. G. (2003). Myopic social prediction and the solo comparison effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1121-1135.
40. Olson, C. L. (1976). Some apparent violations of the representativeness heuristic in human judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 599-608.
41. Paté-Cornell, E., & Guikema, S. (2002). Probabilistic modeling of terrorist threats: A systems analysis approach to setting priorities among counter-measures. Military Operations Research, 7, 5-23.
42. Poulton, E. C. (1994). Behavioral decision theory: A new approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104, 406-415.
44. Sloman, S., Rottenstreich, Wisniewski, E., Hadjichristidis, C., & Fox, C. R. (2004). Typical versus atypical unpacking and superadditive probability judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 573-582.
45. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
46. Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
47. Slovic, P. (2002). Terrorism as hazard: A new species of trouble. Risk Analysis, 22, 425-426.
48. Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 271-296.
49. Stone, E., Yates, F., & Parker, A. (1994). Risk communication: Absolute versus relative expressions of low-probability risks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 387-408.
50. Tetlock, P. E., & Lebow, R. N. (2001). Poking counterfactual holes in covering laws: Cognitive styles and historical reasoning. American Political Science Review, 95, 829-843.
51. Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547-567.
52. Villejoubert, G., & Mandel, D. R. (2002). The inverse fallacy: An account of deviations from Bayes's theorem and the additivity principle. Memory & Cognition, 30, 171-178.
53. Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., & Zwick, R. (1993). Comparing the calibration and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Management Science, 39, 176-190.
54. Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129-140.
55. Windschitl, P. D., Kruger, J., & Simms, E. N. (2003). The influence of egocentrism and focalism on people's optimism in competitions: When what affects us equally affects me more. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 398-408.
56. Yechiam, E., & Budescu, D. V. (2004). When the clock slows down: The sensitivity of probability to time units. Manuscript submitted for publication.