Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 365-385

  Botzen, W J Wouter ^a   Kunreuther, Howard ^b   Michel Kerjan, Erwann ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bounded rationality; Expected utility theory; Intuitive thinking; Low probability highconsequence risks; Risk communication; Tail risk perceptions; Threshold model

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938530943     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aerts, J. C. J. H., Botzen,W. J.W., Emanuel, K., Lin, N., De Moel, H., & Michel-Kerjan, E. (2014). Evaluating flood resilience strategies for coastal mega-cities. Science, 344, 473-475.
2. Aerts, J. C. J. H., Lin, N., Botzen, W. J. W., Emanuel, K., & de Moel, H. (2013). Low probability flood-risk modeling for New York City. Risk Analysis, 33(5), 772-788.
3. Alberini, A., Cropper, M., Krupnick, A., & Simon, N. B. (2004). Does the value of a statistical life vary with age and health status? Evidence from the US and Canada. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48(1), 769-792.
4. Barberis, N. C. (2013a). The psychology of tail events: Progress and challenges. American Economic Review, 103(3), 611-616.
5. Barberis, N. C. (2013b). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173-96.
6. Baron, J., Hershey, J. C., & Kunreuther, H. (2000). Determinants of priority for risk reduction: the role of worry. Risk Analysis, 20, 413-428.
7. Barseghyan, L., Molinari, F., O'Donoghue, T., & Teitelbaum, J. (2013a). Distinguishing probability weighting from risk perceptions in field data. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 103(3), 580-585.
8. Barseghyan, L., Molinari, F., O'Donoghue, T., & Teitelbaum, J. (2013b). The nature of risk preferences: Evidence from insurance choices. American Economic Review, 103(6), 2499-2529.
9. Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2012). Salience theory of choice under risk. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3): 1243-85.
10. Botzen, W. J. W., Aerts, J. C. J. H., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2009). Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socio-economic and objective risk factors. Water Resources Research, 45, W10440.
11. Botzen, W. J. W., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2012). Monetary valuation of insurance against flood risk under climate change. International Economic Review, 53(3), 1005-1025.
12. Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard,M., McCaul, K. D., &Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26(2), 136-145.
13. Brilly, M., & Polic, M. (2005). Public perceptions of flood risk, flood forecasting and mitigation. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 5, 345-355.
14. Camerer, C., & Kunreuther, H. (1989). Experimental markets for insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 265-300.
15. Carman, K. G., & Kooreman, P. (2014). Probability perceptions and preventive health care. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 49, 43-71.
16. Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2): 669-700.
17. De Bruin, W. B., Parker, A. M., & Maurer, J. (2011). Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 42, 145-159.
18. Erev, I., Glozman, I., & Hertwig, R. (2008). What impacts the impact of rare events. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(2), 153-177.
19. Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2012). Probability and risk: Foundations and economic implications of probabilitydependent risk preferences. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 567-93.
20. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.
21. Fischhoff, B., & de Bruin, W. B. (1999). Fifty-fifty=50%? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(21), 37-44.
22. Fox, C. R., & Hadar, L. (2006). "Decisions from experience" = sampling error + prospect theory: Reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004). Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 159-161.
23. Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Dread risk, September 11, and fatal traffic accidents. Psychological Science, 15(4), 286-287.
24. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(68), 684-704.
25. Goldstein, D. G., & Rothschild, D. (2014). Lay understanding of probability distributions. Judgment and Decision Making, 9(1), 1-14.
26. Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534-539.
27. Hoffrage, U., & Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Academic Medicine, 73, 538-540.
28. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
29. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
30. Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., & De Maeyer, P. (2013). Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 33(1), 24-49.
31. Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 631-639.
32. Kousky, C., & Kunreuther, H. (2014). Addressing affordability in the National Flood Insurance Program. Journal of Extreme Events, 1(1), 1-28.
33. Kunreuther, H., Michel-Kerjan, E., & Pauly, M. (2013). Making America more resilient toward natural disasters: A call for action. Environment, June.
34. Kunreuther, H. C., Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Making low probabilities useful. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(2), 161-186.
35. Kunreuther, H. C., & Pauly, M. (2004). Neglecting disaster: Why don't people insure against large losses? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(1), 5-21.
36. Kunreuther, H., Pauly, M., & McMorrow, S. (2013). Behavioral economics and insurance: Improving decisions in the most misunderstood industry. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology and Human Learning, 4(6), 551-578.
38. Lin, N., Emanuel, K., Oppenheimer, M., & Vanmarcke, E. (2012). Physically based assessment of hurricane surge threat under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 1389, 462-467.
39. Loewenstein, G. F., Hsee, C.K., Weber, E. U., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286.
40. McClelland, G., Schulze, W., & Coursey, D. (1993). Insurance for low-probability hazards: A bimodal response to unlikely events. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 95- 116.
41. Michel-Kerjan, E. O. (2010). Catastrophe economics: The National Flood Insurance Program. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(4), 165-186.
42. Michel-Kerjan, E., & Kunreuther, H. (2011). Redesigning flood insurance. Science, 433, 408-409.
43. Michel-Kerjan, E., Lemoyne de Forges, S., & Kunreuther, H. (2012). Policy tenure under the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 644-658.
44. National Research Council (2012). Disaster reslience: a national imperative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
45. NYC (2013). PlaNYC: A stronger more resilient NYC. New York City, Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability. http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/html/report/report.shtml
46. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 21, 341-356.
47. Ruin, I., Gaillard, J.-C., & Lutoff, C. (2007). How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Environmental Hazards, 7(3), 235-244.
48. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York.
49. Schapira, M. M., Davids, S. L., McAuliffe, T. L., & Nattinger, A. B. (2004). Agreement between scales in the measurement of breast cancer risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 24(3), 665-673.
50. Schneider, Y., & Zweifel, P. (2004). How much internalization of nuclear risk through liability insurance? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 29(3), 219-240.
51. Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26(4), 971-979.
52. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
53. Slovic, P. (2000). Perceptions of Risk. Earthscan, London.
54. Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. London: Earthscan.
55. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322.
56. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10, 281- 285.
57. Slovic, P. Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, A. Tversky (Eds.) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Corrigan, B., & Combs, B. (1977). Preference for insuring against probable small losses: Insurance implications. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 44(2), 237-258.
59. Slovic, P., Layman, M., & Flynn, J. H. (1991). Risk perception, trust, and nuclear waste: Lessons from YuccaMountain. Environment, 33(3), 7-30.
60. Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effect of using actual cases, providing instructions, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 271-296.
61. Slovic, P., & Weber, E. U. (2015). Perception of risk posed by extreme events. In: Regulation of toxic substances and hazardous waste (2nd edition) (Applegate, Gabba, Laitos, & Sachs, Editors), Foundation Press, in press. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2293086.
62. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 332-382.
63. Taleb, N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.
64. Terpstra, T. (2011). Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: Affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Analysis, 31(10), 1658-1674.
65. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
66. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
67. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.
68. Viscusi, W. K., & Hamilton, J. T. (1999). Are risk regulators rational? Evidence from hazardous waste cleanup decisions. The American Economic Review, 89(4), 1010- 1027.
69. Viscusi, W. K., & Zeckhauser, R.J. (2006). National survey evidence on disasters and relief: Risk beliefs, selfinterest, and compassion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 33(1-2), 13-36.
70. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). The theory of games and economic behavior. 2nd edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
71. Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. (2011). The American public’s understanding of climate change. American Psychologist, 66, 315-328.
72. Weinstein, N. D., Kwitel, A., McCaul, K. D., Magnan, R. E., Gerrard, M., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Risk perception: Assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychology, 26(2), 146-151.
73. Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., Byram, S., Fischhoff, B., & Welch, H. G. (2000). A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: A validation study. Medical Decision Making, 20(3), 298-307.