Risk Communication: Absolute versus Relative Expressions of Low-Probability Risks
dc.contributor.author | Stone Eric R. , | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Yates J. Frank, | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Parker Andrew M. , | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-04-10T17:43:25Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-04-10T17:43:25Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1994-12 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Stone Eric R., , Yates J. Frank, , Parker Andrew M., (1994/12)."Risk Communication: Absolute versus Relative Expressions of Low-Probability Risks." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60(3): 387-408. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/31155> | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WP2-45NJFD1-7/2/bd284e460041e5b33d074ae2c5176493 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/31155 | |
dc.description.abstract | According to most prescriptive decision rules, formally equivalent methods of communicating risk information should have identical effects on risk-taking behavior, even if the pertinent displays are different. The present work takes two methods commonly employed in epidemiology, incidence rates and relative risks, and examines their comparative effects on risk-avoidant behavior. In Experiment 1, we presented 108 undergraduates with information about risks associated with different brands of tires and toothpaste and displayed that information either as incidence rates or as a relative risk ratio. For the tires product, subjects given the relative risk format were willing to pay more money for a safer product than were subjects given the incidence rate format. There were, however, no differences between the two conditions for the toothpaste product. Experiment 2 evaluated two potential explanations for the difference in findings between the two products. The majority of the data supported an "editing" hypothesis, which suggests that extreme low-probability risks, such as those associated with tire blowouts, are edited to "essentially nil risk," while more moderate risks, such as those associated with periodontal disease, are considered to be small but significant. These findings are discussed in the context of fuzzy trace theory and related models, which suggest that people reason on the basis of simplified representations rather than on the literal information available. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1098586 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3118 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_US |
dc.title | Risk Communication: Absolute versus Relative Expressions of Low-Probability Risks | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Psychology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | University of Michigan, USA. | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | University of Michigan, USA. | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | University of Michigan, USA. | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/31155/1/0000053.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1091 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.