IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i7p1252-1267.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Sokolowska
  • Patrycja Sleboda

Abstract

Although risk and benefits of risky activities are positively correlated in the real world, empirical results indicate that people perceive them as negatively correlated. The common explanation is that confounding benefits and losses stems from affect. In this article, we address the issue that has not been clearly established in studies on the affect heuristic: to what extent boundary conditions, such as judgments’ generality and expertise, influence the presence of the inverse relation in judgments of hazards. These conditions were examined in four studies in which respondents evaluated general or specific benefits and risks of “affect‐rich” and “affect‐poor” hazards (ranging from investments to applications of stem cell research). In line with previous research, affect is defined as good or bad feelings integral to a stimulus. In contrast to previous research, affect is considered as related both to personal feelings and to social controversies associated with a hazard. Expertise is related to personal knowledge (laypersons vs. experts) as well as to objective knowledge (targets well vs. poorly known to science). The direct comparison of the input from personal and objective ignorance into the inverse relation has not been investigated previously. It was found that affect invoked by a hazard guides general but not specific judgments of its benefits and risks. Technical expertise helps to avoid simplified evaluations of consequences as long as they are well known to science. For new, poorly understood hazards (e.g., stem cell research), expertise does not protect from the perception of the inverse relation between benefits and risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:7:p:1252-1267
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12346
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12346?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ganzach, Yoav, 2000. "Judging Risk and Return of Financial Assets," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 353-370, November.
    2. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    3. Michael J. Cooper & Orlin Dimitrov & P. Raghavendra Rau, 2001. "A Rose.com by Any Other Name," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(6), pages 2371-2388, December.
    4. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    5. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    6. Ellen M. Peters & Burt Burraston & C. K. Mertz, 2004. "An Emotion‐Based Model of Risk Perception and Stigma Susceptibility: Cognitive Appraisals of Emotion, Affective Reactivity, Worldviews, and Risk Perceptions in the Generation of Technological Stigma," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1349-1367, October.
    7. Chong Ju Choi & Carla C. J. M. Millar & Caroline Y. L. Wong, 2005. "Knowledge and the State," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Knowledge Entanglements, chapter 0, pages 19-38, Palgrave Macmillan.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Bernadette Sütterlin, 2014. "Human and Nature‐Caused Hazards: The Affect Heuristic Causes Biased Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1482-1494, August.
    10. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
    11. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aisha Egolf & Christina Hartmann & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1546-1559, July.
    2. Donald W. Hine & Kirsten Clarke & Anthony D. G. Marks & Methuen I. Morgan, 2019. "Feelings About Fracking: Using the Affect Heuristic to Understand Opposition to Coal Seam Gas Production," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 586-598, March.
    3. Pedro Antonio Martín-Cervantes & María del Carmen Valls Martínez, 2023. "Unraveling the relationship between betas and ESG scores through the Random Forests methodology," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(3), pages 1-29, September.
    4. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    5. Venu Kandiah & Andrew R. Binder & Emily Z. Berglund, 2017. "An Empirical Agent‐Based Model to Simulate the Adoption of Water Reuse Using the Social Amplification of Risk Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 2005-2022, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    4. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    5. Alexander Kempf & Christoph Merkle & Alexandra Niessen†Ruenzi, 2014. "Low Risk and High Return – Affective Attitudes and Stock Market Expectations," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 20(5), pages 995-1030, November.
    6. Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John & Fynnwin Prager, 2012. "Flu, Risks, and Videotape: Escalating Fear and Avoidance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 729-743, April.
    7. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    8. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2016. "Cumulative Response to Sequences of Terror Attacks Varying in Frequency and Trajectory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2272-2284, December.
    9. Kim Kaivanto & Winston Kwon, 2015. "The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch," Working Papers 94449112, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    10. Piers Fleming & Ellen Townsend & Joost A. van Hilten & Alexa Spence & Eamonn Ferguson, 2012. "Expert relevance and the use of context-driven heuristic processes in risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 857-873, August.
    11. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    12. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    13. Liana Fraenkel & Marilyn Stolar & Jonathan R. Bates & Richard L. Street Jr & Harjinder Chowdhary & Sarah Swift & Ellen Peters, 2018. "Variability in Affect and Willingness to Take Medication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 34-43, January.
    14. Yuriko Suzuki & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Seiji Yasumura & Michio Murakami & Mayumi Harigane & Hirooki Yabe & Tetsuya Ohira & Akira Ohtsuru & Satomi Nakajima & Masaharu Maeda, 2018. "Changes in Risk Perception of the Health Effects of Radiation and Mental Health Status: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.
    15. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    16. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    17. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    18. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    20. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.

    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:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:7:p:1252-1267. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.