How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 411-416

  Bonner, Carissa ^a   Newell, Ben R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Construal level theory; Framing; Health statistics; Ratio bias; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350155153     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Alonso, A., & Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2003). Irrational decisions: attending to numbers rather than ratios. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1537-1547.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003). Causes of death, Australia 2003. http://www.abs.gov.au.
3. Chandron, S. & Menon, G. (2004). When a day means more than a year: effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 375-389.
4. Dale, D., Rudski, J., Schwarz, A. & Smith, E. (2007). Innumeracy and incentives: A ratio bias experiment. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 243-250.
5. Denes-Raj, V. & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66, 819-829.
6. Gigerenzer, G. & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684-704.
7. Hampson, S. E., Andrews, J. A., Barckley, M., Lichtenstein, E. & Lee, M. E. (2000). Conscientiousness, perceived risk, and risk-reduction behaviors: A preliminary study. Health Psychology, 19, 496-500.
8. Kirkpatrick, L., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive- Experiential Self-Theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 534-544.
9. Newell, B. R., Mitchell, C. J. & Hayes, B. K. (in press). Getting scarred and winning lotteries: Effects of exemplar cuing and statistical format on imagining low probability events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
10. Pinto-Prades, J. L., Martinez-Perez, J. E. & Abellán- Perpiñán, J. M. (2006). The influence of the ratio bias phenomenon on the elicitation of health states utilities. Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 118-133.
11. Reyna, V. F. & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 89-107.
12. Slovic, P., Monahan, J. & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing the probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 271-296.
13. Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.
14. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
15. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
16. Van der Pligt, J. (1996). Risk protection and self protective behaviour. European Psychologist, 1, 34-43.
17. Weinstein, N. D. (1993). Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 12, 324-333.
18. Yamigishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 495-506.