IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v3y2008i5p411-416_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Bonner, Carissa
  • Newell, Ben R.

Abstract

Which statement conveys greater risk: “100 people die from cancer every day” or “36,500 people die from cancer every year”? In statistics where both frequencies and temporal information are used to convey risk, two theories predict opposite answers to this question. Construal level theory predicts that “100 people die from cancer every day” will be judged as more risky, while the ratio bias predicts that the equivalent “36,500 people die from cancer every year” will result in higher risk judgments. An experiment investigated which format produces higher risk ratings, and whether ratings are influenced by increasing the salience of the numerical or temporal part of the statistic. Forty-eight participants were randomly assigned to a numerical, temporal or control salience condition, and rated risk framed as number of deaths per day or per year. The year format was found to result in higher perceived risk, indicating that the ratio bias effect is dominant, but there was no effect of salience.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonner, Carissa & Newell, Ben R., 2008. "How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias versus construal level theory," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(5), pages 411-416, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:5:p:411-416_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500000437/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:5:p:411-416_6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.