IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-03403-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Human behavior in the context of low-probability high-impact events

Author

Listed:
  • Joakim Sundh

    (Uppsala University)

Abstract

Events with very low a-priori probability but very high impact shape our lives to a significant degree, on an individual as well as a global level. Unfortunately, people have difficulties understanding and processing the prospects of such events, leading to idiosyncratic behavior. In this article I summarize the main findings regarding human behavior in the context of low-probability high-impact events and identify the main sources of bias and other idiosyncrasies, specifically: [1] ignorance of critical events due to biased information search, [2] a false sense of security due to reinforcement learning and reliance on small samples, [3] biased evaluation of likelihood due to mental availability and affective content, and [4] inaccurate interpretation of risks due to the format by which they are communicated. I further suggest ways to mitigate these problems and areas where additional research is needed. Lastly, I emphasize that, in order to create useful interventions, more research on the interplay and the dynamics of effects, as well as more research based on practical rather than laboratory contexts, is needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Joakim Sundh, 2024. "Human behavior in the context of low-probability high-impact events," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03403-9
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03403-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03403-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-03403-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hadar, Liat & Fox, Craig R., 2009. "Information asymmetry in decision from description versus decision from experience," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 317-325, June.
    2. Valerie F. Reyna, 2008. "A Theory of Medical Decision Making and Health: Fuzzy Trace Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(6), pages 850-865, November.
    3. Schurr, Amos & Rodensky, Dotan & Erev, Ido, 2014. "The effect of unpleasant experiences on evaluation and behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Nic Fleming, 2020. "Coronavirus misinformation, and how scientists can help to fight it," Nature, Nature, vol. 583(7814), pages 155-156, July.
    5. Corso, Phaedra S & Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 2001. "Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 165-184, September.
    6. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    7. Barron, Greg & Ursino, Giovanni, 2013. "Underweighting rare events in experience based decisions: Beyond sample error," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 278-286.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:513-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Lennart Sjöberg & Elisabeth Engelberg, 2010. "Risk Perception and Movies: A Study of Availability as a Factor in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 95-106, January.
    12. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    13. Kocher, Martin G. & Lahno, Amrei Marie & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Ambiguity aversion is not universal," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 268-283.
    14. Mol, Jantsje M. & Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Blasch, Julia E., 2022. "After the virtual flood: Risk perceptions and flood preparedness after virtual reality risk communication," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 189-214, January.
    15. Kunreuther, Howard & Novemsky, Nathan & Kahneman, Daniel, 2001. "Making Low Probabilities Useful," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 103-120, September.
    16. Joseph B. Bak-Coleman & Ian Kennedy & Morgan Wack & Andrew Beers & Joseph S. Schafer & Emma S. Spiro & Kate Starbird & Jevin D. West, 2022. "Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1372-1380, October.
    17. James Chivers & Nicholas E. Flores, 2002. "Market Failure in Information: The National Flood Insurance Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 515-521.
    18. Botzen, W.J.W. & Aerts, J.C.J.H. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2009. "Willingness of homeowners to mitigate climate risk through insurance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2265-2277, June.
    19. McClelland, Gary H & Schulze, William D & Coursey, Don L, 1993. "Insurance for Low-Probability Hazards: A Bimodal Response to Unlikely Events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 95-116, August.
    20. Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Kunreuther, Howard & Michel-Kerjan, Erwann, 2015. "Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 365-385, July.
    21. Liang, Garston & Rakow, Tim & Yechiam, Eldad & Newell, Ben R., 2022. "The day after the disaster: Risk-taking following large- and small-scale disasters in a microworld," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 513-546, May.
    22. Antonio A. Arechar & Jennifer Allen & Adam J. Berinsky & Rocky Cole & Ziv Epstein & Kiran Garimella & Andrew Gully & Jackson G. Lu & Robert M. Ross & Michael N. Stagnaro & Yunhao Zhang & Gordon Pennyc, 2023. "Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(9), pages 1502-1513, September.
    23. Baruch Fischhoff & Don MacGregor, 1983. "Judged Lethality: How Much People Seem to Know Depends Upon How They Are Asked," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 229-236, December.
    24. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 2004. "Omission bias, individual differences, and normality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 74-85, July.
    25. Antonio A. Arechar & Jennifer Allen & Adam J. Berinsky & Rocky Cole & Ziv Epstein & Kiran Garimella & Andrew Gully & Jackson G. Lu & Robert M. Ross & Michael N. Stagnaro & Yunhao Zhang & Gordon Pennyc, 2023. "Author Correction: Understanding and combatting misinformation across 16 countries on six continents," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(10), pages 1797-1797, October.
    26. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    27. Steven Woloshin & Lisa M. Schwartz & Stephanie Byram & Baruch Fischhoff & H. Gilbert Welch, 2000. "A New Scale for Assessing Perceptions of Chance," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(3), pages 298-307, July.
    28. Barron, Greg & Yechiam, Eldad, 2009. "The coexistence of overestimation and underweighting of rare events and the contingent recency effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(6), pages 447-460, October.
    29. Fetherstonhaugh, David & Slovic, Paul & Johnson, Stephen & Friedrich, James, 1997. "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 283-300, May-June.
    30. Garston Liang & Tim Rakow & Eldad Yechiam & Ben R. Newell, 2022. "The day after the disaster: Risk-taking following large- and small-scale disasters in a microworld," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(3), pages 513-546, May.
    31. Marilyn M. Schapira & Ann B. Nattinger & Colleen A. McHorney, 2001. "Frequency or Probability? A Qualitative Study of Risk Communication Formats Used in Health Care," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(6), pages 459-467, December.
    32. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    33. Ro'ee Levy, 2021. "Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 831-870, March.
    34. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
    35. Amy Maxmen, 2021. "Has COVID taught us anything about pandemic preparedness?," Nature, Nature, vol. 596(7872), pages 332-335, August.
    36. Stone, Eric R. & Yates, J. Frank & Parker, Andrew M., 1994. "Risk Communication: Absolute versus Relative Expressions of Low-Probability Risks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 387-408, December.
    37. Baron, Jonathan & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Reference Points and Omission Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 475-498, September.
    38. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. "Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-61, February.
    39. 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)

    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. Mona Ahmadiani & Susana Ferreira & Craig E. Landry, 2019. "Flood Insurance and Risk Reduction: Market Penetration, Coverage, and Mitigation in Coastal North Carolina," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(4), pages 1058-1082, April.
    2. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen, 2019. "Determinants of Probability Neglect and Risk Attitudes for Disaster Risk: An Online Experimental Study of Flood Insurance Demand among Homeowners," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2514-2527, November.
    3. Andreas Friedl & Katharina Lima de Miranda & Ulrich Schmidt, 2014. "Insurance demand and social comparison: An experimental analysis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 97-109, April.
    4. Botzen, W.J.W. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2012. "Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 151-166.
    5. Kim Kaivanto & Winston Kwon, 2015. "The precautionary principle as a heuristic patch," Working Papers 94449112, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    6. Daniel R. Petrolia & Craig E. Landry & Keith H. Coble, 2013. "Risk Preferences, Risk Perceptions, and Flood Insurance," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(2), pages 227-245.
    7. Patt , Anthony G. & Schroter, Dagmar, 2007. "Perceptions of environmental risks in Mozambique : implications for the success of adaptation and coping strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4417, The World Bank.
    8. de Jong, Piet & Tickle, Leonie & Xu, Jianhui, 2020. "A more meaningful parameterization of the Lee–Carter model," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 1-8.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:3:p:287-296 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Andrea Morone & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2006. "Valuing Protection against Low Probability, High Loss Risks: Experimental Evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-34, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    11. Ahmad Barirani & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2017. "The Origins and Extent of Entrepreneurial Action-Orientedness: An Experimental Study," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-006/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    13. Di Guida, Sibilla & Marchiori, Davide & Erev, Ido, 2012. "Decisions among defaults and the effect of the option to do nothing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 790-793.
    14. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    15. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Post-Print halshs-00718642, HAL.
    16. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    17. Angela Bearth & Franziska Hofer & Tamara Stotz & Signe Ghelfi, 2021. "Increasing the deterrence of airport security checks by managing expectations through communication: a hypothetical scenario experiment," Journal of Transportation Security, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 275-289, December.
    18. Connolly, Terry & Ordonatez, Lisa D. & Coughlan, Richard, 1997. "Regret and Responsibility in the Evaluation of Decision Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 73-85, April.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Pech, Wesley & Milan, Marcelo, 2009. "Behavioral economics and the economics of Keynes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 891-902, December.
    21. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks : Evidence from a large representative survey," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00718642, HAL.
    22. Michael L. DeKay & John C. Hershey & Mark D. Spranca, & Peter A. Ubel & David A. Asch, 2006. "Are medical treatments for individuals and groups like single-play and multiple-play gambles?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 134-145, November.

    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:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03403-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    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.