IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heuristics Structure and Pervade Formal Risk Assessment


  • Brian H. MacGillivray


Lay perceptions of risk appear rooted more in heuristics than in reason. A major concern of the risk regulation literature is that such “error‐strewn” perceptions may be replicated in policy, as governments respond to the (mis)fears of the citizenry. This has led many to advocate a relatively technocratic approach to regulating risk, characterized by high reliance on formal risk and cost‐benefit analysis. However, through two studies of chemicals regulation, we show that the formal assessment of risk is pervaded by its own set of heuristics. These include rules to categorize potential threats, define what constitutes valid data, guide causal inference, and to select and apply formal models. Some of these heuristics lay claim to theoretical or empirical justifications, others are more back‐of‐the‐envelope calculations, while still more purport not to reflect some truth but simply to constrain discretion or perform a desk‐clearing function. These heuristics can be understood as a way of authenticating or formalizing risk assessment as a scientific practice, representing a series of rules for bounding problems, collecting data, and interpreting evidence (a methodology). Heuristics are indispensable elements of induction. And so they are not problematic per se, but they can become so when treated as laws rather than as contingent and provisional rules. Pitfalls include the potential for systematic error, masking uncertainties, strategic manipulation, and entrenchment. Our central claim is that by studying the rules of risk assessment qua rules, we develop a novel representation of the methods, conventions, and biases of the prior art.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian H. MacGillivray, 2014. "Heuristics Structure and Pervade Formal Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 771-787, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:4:p:771-787
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12136

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    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

    1. Edward J Calabrese & Linda A Baldwin, 2003. "Toxicology rethinks its central belief," Nature, Nature, vol. 421(6924), pages 691-692, February.
    2. Noll, Roger G & Krier, James E, 1990. "Some Implications of Cognitive Psychology for Risk Regulation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(2), pages 747-779, June.
    3. Herbert A. Simon & Allen Newell, 1958. "Heuristic Problem Solving: The Next Advance in Operations Research," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Daniel J. Hicks & P. D. Magnus & Jessey Wright, 2020. "Inductive Risk, Science, and Values: A Reply to MacGillivray," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 667-673, April.
    2. Brian H. MacGillivray, 2019. "Null Hypothesis Testing ≠ Scientific Inference: A Critique of the Shaky Premise at the Heart of the Science and Values Debate, and a Defense of Value‐Neutral Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1520-1532, July.

    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. Frank Daumann & Florian Follert & Werner Gleißner & Endre Kamarás & Chantal Naumann, 2021. "Political Decision Making in the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of Germany from the Perspective of Risk Management," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Louis Jaeck, 2011. "Information and political failures: to what extent does rational ignorance explain irrational beliefs formation?," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 287-301, September.
    3. repec:jss:jstsof:12:i05 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Manis, K.T. & Madhavaram, Sreedhar, 2023. "AI-Enabled marketing capabilities and the hierarchy of capabilities: Conceptualization, proposition development, and research avenues," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    5. Suresh P. Sethi & Sushil Gupta & Vipin K. Agrawal & Vijay K. Agrawal, 2022. "Nobel laureates’ contributions to and impacts on operations management," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4283-4303, December.
    6. Roger G. Noll, 1996. "Reforming Risk Regulation," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 545(1), pages 165-175, May.
    7. Qi Zhou, 2009. "Economic analysis of the legal standard for deceit in English tort law," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 83-102, August.
    8. Stephen Harwood, 2023. "Complex Problems and Dealing with them on a Research Methods Course in a Business School," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 587-607, August.
    9. Michelle Baddeley, 2020. "Hoarding in the age of COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S), pages 69-75, June.
    10. J. L. Henshaw, 2019. "Systems Thinking for Systems Making: Joining Systems of Thought and Action," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 63-91, February.
    11. Matthew Kahn, 2007. "Environmental disasters as risk regulation catalysts? The role of Bhopal, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Love Canal, and Three Mile Island in shaping U.S. environmental law," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 17-43, August.
    12. Philippe Baumard, 1992. "Shifting Intelligence Needs," Post-Print hal-03230970, HAL.
    13. S. A. Bykadorov & E. B. Kibalov, 2021. "On the Issue of the Social Effectiveness of Expert Assessments of Large-Scale Regional Transport Projects," Regional Research of Russia, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 490-501, October.
    14. Song, Liwen & Tang, Sanyi & Xiang, Changcheng & Cheke, Robert A. & He, Sha, 2023. "Modelling and bifurcation analysis of spatiotemporal hormetic effects on pest control," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    15. Paras M. Agrawal & Ramesh Sharda, 2013. "OR Forum---Quantum Mechanics and Human Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 1-16, February.
    16. Dierkes, Meinolf, 1994. "Leitbilder der Technik - ihre Bedeutungen, Funktionen und Potentiale für den KI-Diskurs," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 83-98.
    17. Quentin Plantec & Pascal Le Masson & Benoît Weil, 2022. "Mécanismes de découvertes – inventions dans la recherche industrielle : aux origines de CRISPR-Cas9 dans l’industrie agroalimentaire," Post-Print hal-03727323, HAL.
    18. Jonathan Baron & Rajeev Gowda & Howard Kunreuther, 1993. "Attitudes Toward Managing Hazardous Waste: What Should Be Cleaned Up and Who Should Pay for It?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 183-192, April.
    19. Zbigniew Jaworowski, 2004. "Chernobyl, Nuclear Wastes and Nature," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(5), pages 807-824, September.
    20. Brian Hector MacGillivray & Ruth E. Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2011. "Is Risk‐Based Regulation Feasible? The Case of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 266-281, February.
    21. Krzywdzinski, Martin & Gerber, Christine & Evers, Maren, 2018. "The Social Consequences of the Digital Revolution," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 101-120.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:34:y:2014:i:4:p:771-787. 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: .

    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.