Toward an understanding of the influence of cultural background and domain experience on the effects of risk-pricing formats on risk perception

Risk Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1846-1869

  Fraser Mackenzie, Peter ^a   Sung, Ming Chien ^a   Johnson, Johnnie E V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Culture; Domain experience; Framing; Risk communication; Risk information

Indexed keywords

CELL CULTURE; COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COSTS; SURVEYS;

COGNITIVE PROCESS; CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS; DOMAIN EXPERIENCE; FRAMING; FRAMING EFFECTS; PREFERENCE REVERSALS; RISK COMMUNICATION; RISK INFORMATION;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 84911989252     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12210     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 1981; 211(4481):453-458.
2. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 1995; 102(4):684-704.
3. Slovic P, Monahan J, MacGregor DG. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 2000; 24(3):271-296.
4. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(2):311-322.
5. Slovic P. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 1986; 6(4):403-415.
6. Siegrist M. Communicating low risk magnitudes: Incidence rates expressed as frequency versus rates expressed as probability. Risk Analysis, 1997; 17(4):507-510.
7. Weber E, Hsee C. Culture and individual judgment and decision making. Applied Psychology, 2000; 49(1):32-61.
8. Bontempo RN, Bottom WP, Weber EU. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach. Risk Analysis, 1997; 17(4):479-488.
9. Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1999; 125(3):367-383.
10. Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2002; 15(4):263-290.
11. Fellner G, Maciejovsky B. Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2007; 28(3):338-350.
12. Kuhnen CM, Chiao JY. Genetic determinants of financial risk taking. PLoS One, 2009; 4(2):e4362.
13. Pachur T, Hanoch Y, Gummerum M. Prospects behind bars: Analyzing decisions under risk in a prison population. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2010; 17(5):630-636.
14. Weber EU, Hsee C. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 1998; 44(9):1205-1217.
15. Markowitz H. Portfolio selection. Journal of Finance, 1952; 7(1):77-91.
16. Weber E, Shafir S, Blais AR. Predicting risk-sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 2004; 111:430-445.
17. Luce RD, Weber EU. An axiomatic theory of conjoint, expected risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1986; 30(2):188-205.
18. Barnett J, Breakwell GM. Risk perception and experience: Hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(1):171-178.
19. Jackson RE. Individual differences in distance perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2009; 276(1662):1665-1669.
20. Wenzel E, Wightman F, Kistler D, Foster S. Acoustic origins of individual differences in sound localization behavior. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1988; 84:S79.
21. Steptoe A, Vögele C. Individual differences in the perception of bodily sensations: The role of trait anxiety and coping style. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1992; 30(6):597-607.
22. Diatchenko L, Slade GD, Nackley AG, Bhalang K, Sigurdsson A, Belfer I, Goldman D, Xu K, Shabalina SA, Shagin D, Max MB, Makarov SS, Maixner W. Genetic basis for individual variations in pain perception and the development of a chronic pain condition. Human Molecular Genetics, 2005; 14(1):135-43.
23. Weber EU, Milliman RA. Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice. Management Science, 1997; 43(2):123-144.
24. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 1986:S251-S78.
25. Arrow KJ. Risk perception in psychology and economics. Economic Inquiry, 1982; 20(1): 1-9.
26. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 2001; 127(2):267.
27. Wong KF, Kwong JY. Comparing two tiny giants or two huge dwarfs? Preference reversals owing to number size framing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2005; 98(1):54-65.
28. Levy J. An introduction to prospect theory. Political Psychology, 1992; 13(2):171-186.
29. Wright GN, Phillips LD. Cultural variation in probabilistic thinking: Alternative ways of dealing with uncertainty. International Journal of Psychology, 1980; 15(1-4):239-257.
30. Phillips LD, Wright GN. Cultural differences in viewing uncertainty and assessing probabilities. Pp. 507-515 in Jungermann H, de Zeeuw G (eds). Decision-Making and Changes in Human Affairs. Netherlands: Springer, 1997.
31. Yates JF, Lee JW, Shinotsuka H. Beliefs about overconfidence, including its cross-national variation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996; 65(2):138-147.
32. Kim KA, Nofsinger JR. Behavioral finance in Asia. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 2008; 16(1):1-7.
33. Dake K. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1991; 22(1):61-82.
34. Abt V, McGurrin MC. Commercial gambling and values in American society: The social construction of risk. Journal of Gambling Studies, 1992; 8(4):413-420.
35. Weber EU, Hsee CK, Sokolowska J. What folklore tells us about risk and risk taking: Cross-cultural comparisons of American, German, and Chinese proverbs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1998; 75(2):170-186.
36. Hutchinson JW, Raman K, Mantrala MK. Finding choice alternatives in memory: Probability models of brand name recall. Journal of Marketing Research, 1994:441-461.
37. Hutchinson WJ, Eisenstein EM, Alba JW. Consumer learning and expertise. Handbook of Consumer Psychology, 2008:103-131.
38. Spence MT, Brucks M. The moderating effects of problem characteristics on experts' and novices' judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 1997:233-247.
39. Rowe G, Wright G. Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi technique. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, 2001:125-144.
40. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(6):643-648.
41. Barke RP, Jenkins-Smith H, Slovic P. Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 1997; 78(1):167-176.
42. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Mertz CK, Neil N, Purchase IF. Evaluating chemical risks: Results of a survey of the British Toxicology Society. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 1997; 16(6):289-304.
43. Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. Overcoming difficulties in Bayesian reasoning: A reply to Lewis and Keren (1999) and Mellers and McGraw (1999). Psychological Review-New York, 1999; 106:425-430.
44. Rottenstreich Y, Kivetz R. On decision making without likelihood judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006; 101(1):74-88.
45. Hoffrage U, Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Martignon L. Representation facilitates reasoning: What natural frequencies are and what they are not. Cognition, 2002; 84(3):343-352.
46. McDaniels TL, Gregory RS. A framework for structuring cross-cultural research in risk and decision making. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1991; 22(1):103-128.
47. Golec J, Tamarkin M. Bettors love skewness, not risk, at the horse track. Journal of Political Economy, 1998; 106(1):205-225.
48. Ebert S. On Skewed Risks in Economic Models and Experiments. Working Paper, 2013. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract = 1962783 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1962783, Accessed September 1, 2013.
49. Weber EU. Risk attitude and preference. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2010; 1(1):79-88.
50. Harrison GW, Rutström EE. Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 2009; 12(2):133-158.
51. Wakker PP. Message to referees who want to embark on yet another discussion of the random-lottery incentive system for individual choice [Internet]. Eurasmus University Rotterdam, 2007 January [updated 2008 February; cited 2013 November 11]. Available at: http://people.few.eur.nl/wakker/miscella/debates/randomlinc.htm, Accessed November 11, 2013.
52. Holt CA, Laury SK. Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 2002; 92(5):1644-1655.
53. Lee J. The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2008; 36(1):19-41.
54. Harrison GW. Rutström EE. Risk aversion in the laboratory. Research in Experimental Economics, 2008; 12:41-196.
55. Goodwin P, Önkal D, Thomson M. Do forecasts expressed as prediction intervals improve production planning decisions? European Journal of Operational Research, 2010; 205(1):195-201.
56. Few S. Information Dashboard Design. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly, 2006.
57. Gyrd-Hansen D, Kristiansen IS, Nexøe J, Nielsen JB. How do individuals apply risk information when choosing among health care interventions? Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(4):697-704.
58. Racing for Change. Racing for Change reveals "free week" findings, [Press release] 2010 April [cited 2010 April]. Available at: http://www.racingforchange.co.uk/news/news-item.aspx?content = 61 (2010), Accessed April 1, 2010.