IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/koe/wpaper/1417.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Simple Way to Elicit Subjective Ambiguity: Application to Low-dose Radiation Exposure in Fukushima

Author

Listed:
  • Fumihiro Yamane

    (Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University)

  • Kyohei Matsushita

    (Faculty of Economics Shiga University)

  • Toshio Fujimi

    (Depertment of Civil and Environmental Engineering Kumamoto University)

  • Hideaki Ohgaki

    (Institute of Advanced Energy Kyoto University)

  • Kota Asano

    (Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies Kyoto University)

Abstract

We develop a new and less burdensome methodology called the high-and-low choice method to elicit and analyse ambiguity in public risk perception. We apply this method to the cancer mortality risk due to low-dose radiation exposure around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, a real uncertain problem caused by the accident that is the second severest one after the Chernobyl case. The empirical results shed new light on Slovic fs (1987) seminal work; considering radiation as an unknown risk made public perceptions for the mortality rate more ambiguous, and the dread image led people to perceive larger and more ambiguous risks. In addition, those who accessed popular information media (television, newspaper, internet, social network services, and conversations with neighbours) tended to have more negative and ambiguous perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fumihiro Yamane & Kyohei Matsushita & Toshio Fujimi & Hideaki Ohgaki & Kota Asano, 2014. "A Simple Way to Elicit Subjective Ambiguity: Application to Low-dose Radiation Exposure in Fukushima," Discussion Papers 1417, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
    • Handle: RePEc:koe:wpaper:1417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.kobe-u.ac.jp/RePEc/koe/wpaper/2014/1417.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trudy Cameron, 2005. "Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-97, January.
    2. Mary Riddel, 2009. "Risk Perception, Ambiguity, and Nuclear-Waste Transport," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 781-797, January.
    3. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    5. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    6. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    7. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
    8. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    9. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    10. Massimo Marinacci, 2002. "Probabilistic Sophistication and Multiple Priors," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 755-764, March.
    11. W. Kip Viscusi & Jahn Hakes, 2003. "Risk ratings that do not measure probabilities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 23-43, January.
    12. Viscusi, W Kip & Magat, Wesley A, 1992. "Bayesian Decisions with Ambiguous Belief Aversion," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 371-387, October.
    13. Aurélien Baillon, 2008. "Eliciting Subjective Probabilities Through Exchangeable Events: An Advantage and a Limitation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 76-87, June.
    14. Heckman, James J & Willis, Robert J, 1977. "A Beta-logistic Model for the Analysis of Sequential Labor Force Participation by Married Women," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(1), pages 27-58, February.
    15. Riddel, Mary, 2011. "Uncertainty and measurement error in welfare models for risk changes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 341-354, May.
    16. Adeline Delavande, 2008. "Measuring revisions to subjective expectations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-82, February.
    17. Mary Riddel & W. Shaw, 2006. "A theoretically-consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: An application to nuclear-waste transport," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 131-150, March.
    18. W. Viscusi & Harrell Chesson, 1999. "Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 157-184, October.
    19. Mary Riddel & Christine Dwyer & W. Douglass Shaw, 2003. "Environmental Risk and Uncertainty: Insights from Yucca Mountain," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 435-458, August.
    20. Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. "Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 265-272, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Ryuji Kakimoto & Hirokazu Tatano, 2016. "Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(2), pages 1243-1256, January.
    2. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Ryuji Kakimoto & Hirokazu Tatano, 2016. "Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(2), pages 1243-1256, January.
    3. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    5. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.
    6. Mary Riddel, 2009. "Risk Perception, Ambiguity, and Nuclear‐Waste Transport," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 75(3), pages 781-797, January.
    7. Melkonyan, Tigran A., 2011. "The Effect of Communicating Ambiguous Risk Information on Choice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Masahide Watanabe & Toshio Fujimi, 2015. "Evaluating Change in Objective Ambiguous Mortality Probability: Valuing Reduction in Ambiguity Size and Risk Level," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(1), pages 1-15, January.
    9. Toshio Fujimi & Hirokazu Tatano, 2013. "Promoting Seismic Retrofit Implementation Through “Nudge”: Using Warranty as a Driver," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1858-1883, October.
    10. Riddel, Mary, 2011. "Uncertainty and measurement error in welfare models for risk changes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 341-354, May.
    11. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    12. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    13. Daniel R. Burghart & Thomas Epper & Ernst Fehr, 2020. "The uncertainty triangle – Uncovering heterogeneity in attitudes towards uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 125-156, April.
    14. Michael Hoy & Richard Peter & Andreas Richter, 2014. "Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 111-133, April.
    15. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    16. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    17. Sergio Almeida & Marcos Rangel, 2016. "Probabilistic Sophistication, Sources Of Uncertainty, And Cognitive Ability: Experimental Evidence," Anais do XLII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 42nd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 131, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    18. Burghart, Daniel R. & Epper, Thomas & Fehr, Ernst, 2015. "The Ambiguity Triangle: Uncovering Fundamental Patterns of Behavior Under Uncertainty," IZA Discussion Papers 9150, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Thierry Kalisa & Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2016. "Willingness to pay to avoid arsenic-related risks: a special regressor approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 143-162, July.
    20. Marco Rojas & Damián Vergara, 2021. "Ambiguity and long-run cooperation in strategic games," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 1077-1098.

    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:koe:wpaper:1417. 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: Kimiaki Shirahama (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fekobjp.html .

    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.