IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rtv/ceisrp/605.html

Catastrophic Risk Perception and the Shared Burden Effect: An Experimental Study Using Prospect Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Riccardo Manghi

    (LUISS Guido Carli University)

  • Daniela Di Cagno

    (LUISS Guido Carli University)

Abstract

This study investigates individual differences in catastrophic risk perception using Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) through a laboratory experiment. The choice of CPT allows us to introduce a basic "addendum" to traditional EUT evaluations of these kinds of risks. We analyze the drivers of risk perception through a laboratory measure of CPT based on experimental data, where possible drivers include sociodemographic factors, psychological characteristics, and psychometric variables such as past experience. We define in this setting an interesting aspect that is a peculiar characteristic of extreme risks: the so-called shared burden effect, where individuals perceive the same risks as less severe if they affect a larger share of the collectivity. External validity is provided by examining whether laboratory-elicited risk perception predicts real-world extreme risk assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Riccardo Manghi & Daniela Di Cagno, 2025. "Catastrophic Risk Perception and the Shared Burden Effect: An Experimental Study Using Prospect Theory," CEIS Research Paper 605, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 23 Jun 2025.
    • Handle: RePEc:rtv:ceisrp:605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ceistorvergata.it/RePEc/rpaper/RP605.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-168, March.
    2. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Géraldine Bocquého & Florence Jacquet & Arnaud Reynaud, 2014. "Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? Assessing farmers' risk behaviour from field-experiment data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 135-172, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    8. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    9. Lauriola, Marco & Di Cicco, Gabriele & Savadori, Lucia, 2024. "Apocalypse now or later? Nuclear war risk perceptions mirroring media coverage and emotional tone shifts in Italian news," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19, pages 1-1, January.
    10. W.J. Wouter Botzen & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Divergence between individual perceptions and objective indicators of tail risks: Evidence from floodplain residents in New York City," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 365-385, July.
    11. Sabrina Cipolletta & Gabriela Rios Andreghetti & Giovanna Mioni, 2022. "Risk Perception towards COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-25, April.
    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. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    2. Schunk, Daniel, 2009. "Behavioral heterogeneity in dynamic search situations: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1719-1738, September.
    3. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    4. Hongli Feng & Xiaodong Du & David A. Hennessy, 2020. "Depressed demand for crop insurance contracts, and a rationale based on third generation Prospect Theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 59-73, January.
    5. Alexis H. Villacis & Jeffrey R. Alwang & Victor Barrera, 2021. "Linking risk preferences and risk perceptions of climate change: A prospect theory approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 863-877, September.
    6. Shuoli Zhao & Chengyan Yue, 2020. "Risk preferences of commodity crop producers and specialty crop producers: An application of prospect theory," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 359-372, May.
    7. Harin, Alexander, 2015. "Problems of utility and prospect theories. A “certain–uncertain” inconsistency within their experimental methods," MPRA Paper 67911, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ranoua Bouchouicha & Lachlan Deer & Ashraf Galal Eid & Peter McGee & Daniel Schoch & Hrvoje Stojic & Jolanda Ygosse-Battisti & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "Gender effects for loss aversion: Yes, no, maybe?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 171-184, October.
    9. Festjens, Anouk & Bruyneel, Sabrina & Diecidue, Enrico & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2015. "Time-based versus money-based decision making under risk: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 52-72.
    10. Harin, Alexander, 2015. "Is Prelec’s function discontinuous at p = 1? (for the Einhorn Award of SJDM)," MPRA Paper 64672, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Schunk, Daniel, 2005. "Search behaviour with reference point preferences : theory and experimental evidence," Papers 05-12, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    12. David Blake & Edmund Cannon & Douglas Wright, 2025. "Correction: Quantifying loss aversion: Evidence from a UK population survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 293-295, December.
    13. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "Do casinos pay their customers to become risk-averse? Revising the house money effect in a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 736-754, September.
    14. Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany [A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 940-982.
    15. Vendrik, Maarten C.M. & Woltjer, Geert, 2006. "Happiness and Loss Aversion: When Social Participation Dominates Comparison," IZA Discussion Papers 2218, IZA Network @ LISER.
    16. Zhao, Shuoli & Skevas, Teo & Chai, Yuan & Tack, Jesse B., 2020. "Crop Insurance Decision under Expected Revenue," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304574, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    18. Sang Lee & Myung J Lee & Byoung W Kim & Jodi M Gilman & John K Kuster & Anne J Blood & Camelia M Kuhnen & Hans C Breiter, 2015. "The Commonality of Loss Aversion across Procedures and Stimuli," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    19. Vendrik, Maarten C.M. & Woltjer, Geert B., 2007. "Happiness and loss aversion: Is utility concave or convex in relative income?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1423-1448, August.
    20. Christoph Duden & Oliver Mußhoff & Frank Offermann, 2023. "Dealing with low‐probability shocks: The role of selected heuristics in farmers’ risk management decisions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 382-399, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rtv:ceisrp:605. 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: Barbara Piazzi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csrotit.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.