Distributions of observed death tolls govern sensitivity to human fatalities

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 106, Issue 52, 2009, Pages 22151-22156

  Olivola, Christopher Y ^a,b   Sagara, Namika ^c,d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^e DECISION RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision by sampling; Decision making; Psychophysics; Risk preferences; Value of human lives

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; FATALITY; HUMAN; LIFE EVENT; MEMORY; MORTALITY; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGY; RISK;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ALTRUISM; CHILD; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; DISASTERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MEMORY; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RISK-TAKING; VALUE OF LIFE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 76049116064     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0908980106     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Slovic P (2007) "If I look at the mass I will never act": Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment Decis Making 2:79-95.
2. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453-458.
3. Fetherstonhaugh D, Slovic P, Johnson SM, Friedrich J (1997) Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. J Risk Uncertain 14:283-300.
4. Friedrich J, et al. (1999) Psychophysical numbing: When lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase. J Consum Psychol 8:277-299.
5. de Blaeij A, Florax RJGM, Rietveld P, Verhoef E (2003) The value of statistical life in road safety: A meta-analysis. Accid Anal Prev 35:973-986.
6. Viscusi WK, Aldy JE (2003) The value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain 27:5-76.
7. Strömberg D (2007) Natural disasters, economic development, and humanitarian aid. J Econ Perspect 21:199-222.
8. Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, Values and Frames (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
9. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263-291.
10. Galanter E (1962) The direct measurement of utility and subjective probability. Am J Psychol 75:208-220.
11. Stewart N, Chater N, Brown GDA (2006) Decision by sampling. Cogn Psychol 53:1-26.
12. Stewart N (2009) Decision by sampling: The role of the decision environment in risky choice. Q J Exp Psychol 62:1041-1062.
13. Howe CQ, Lotto RB, Purves D (2006) Comparison of Bayesian and empirical ranking approaches to visual perception. J Theory Biol 241:866-875.
14. Long F, Yang Z, Purves D (2006) Spectral statistics in natural scenes predict hue, saturation, and brightness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:6013-6018.
15. Yang Z, Purves D (2004) The statistical structure of natural light patterns determines perceived light intensity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8745-8750.
16. Sedlmeier P, Betsch T (2002) Etc. Frequency Processing and Cognition (Oxford Univ Press, New York).
17. Stewart N, Brown GDA, Chater N (2005) Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychol Rev 112:881-911.
18. Stewart N, Chater N, Stott HP, Reimers S (2003) Prospect relativity: How choice options influence decision under risk. J Exp Psychol Gen 132:23-46.
19. Wakker PP (2008) Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility family. Health Econ 17:1329-1344.
20. Chater N, Brown GDA (1999) Scale-invariance as a unifying psychological principle. Cognition 69:B17-B24.
21. Enquist BJ, Niklas KJ (2001) Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities. Nature 401:655-660.
22. Chater N, Brown GDA (2008) From universal laws of cognition to specific cognitive models. Cognit Sci 32:36-67.
23. Reed WJ, Hughes BD (2002) From gene families and genera to incomes and internet file sizes: Why power laws are so common in nature. Phys Rev E 66:067103.
24. Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev 92:1644-1655.
25. Guria J, Leung J, Jones-Lee M, Loomes G (2005) The willingness to accept value of statistical life relative to the willingness to pay value: Evidence and policy implications. Environ Resour Econ 32:113-127.
26. McDaniels TL (1992) Reference points, loss aversion, and contingent values for auto safety. J Risk Uncertain 5:187-200.
27. Greene RL (1986) Sources of recency effects in free recall. Psychol Bull 99:221-228.
28. Binswanger HP (1980) Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. Am J Agricultural Econ 62:395-407.
29. Blais AR, Weber EU (2006) A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment Decis Making 1:33-47.
30. Hsee CK, Weber EU (1999) Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. J Behav Decis Making 12:165-179.
31. Shepard RN (2001) Perceptual-cognitive universals as reflections of the world. Behav Brain Sci 24:581-601.
32. Anderson JR (1990) The Adaptive Character of Thought (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).
33. Purves D, Lotto RB (2003) Why We See What We Do: An Empirical Theory of Vision (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA).
34. Howe CQ, Purves D (2005) Perceiving Geometry: Geometrical Illusions Explained by Natural Scene Statistics (Springer, New York).
35. Miyamoto Y, Nisbett RE, Masuda T (2006) Culture and the physical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychol Sci 17:113-119.
36. Linville PW, Fischer GW (1991) Preferences for separating or combining events. J Pers Soc Psychol 60:5-23.
37. Brown GDA, Gardner J, Oswald AJ, Qian J (2008) Does wage rank affect employees' well-being? Industrial Relations 47:355-389.