Risk as Value: Combining Affect and Analysis in Risk Judgments

Abstract

Studies of public perceptions of hazardous activities and technologies include a wide range of approaches. One approach—“risk‐as‐analysis”—emphasizes the human capacity for analytic deliberation. A second approach—“risk‐as‐feelings”—emphasizes the tendency for people to rely on affective reactions. In this paper we expand and link these approaches by adopting a “risk‐as‐value” model, emphasizing that responses to risk result from a combination of analysis and affect that motivates individuals and groups to achieve a particular way of life. Derived from dual‐process theories, the risk‐as‐value model implies that differences in perceived risk may arise from differences in the analytic evaluation of a risk, differences in the affective evaluation of a risk, or the way these evaluations are combined. We discuss the goals of dual processes in comprehensively governing the valuation of risk information in order to achieve desirable outcomes. We highlight the importance of model‐based research and the need for researchers to look for converging evidence using multiple dependent measures and methods. Implications for risk communication are discussed.

Keywords:

• Perceived risk
• affect
• analysis
• value
• judgment
• decision making
• dual process models

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Dr. Paul Slovic for his comments during the drafting of the paper and to Ms. Jeanette Murray for assistance with manuscript preparation.

Notes

1. Although researchers in the field of emotion have not yet agreed on a precise definition of “affect,” we conceptualize this term as meaning “goodness” or “badness” (i) experienced as a feeling state (with or without consciousness), and (ii) demarcating a positive or negative quality of a specific stimulus. The strength and speed of positive and negative affective reactions differs across individuals; stimuli also vary in the strength and speed with which they elicit positive and negative affect. An affective reaction can be an enduring disposition strongly related to a stimulus (e.g., your child), but can also be a fleeting reaction or weakly related response (e.g., to a chair) (Finucane et al., 2003).

2. Note that the exact nature of the multidimensional representation revealed may vary according to the type of task and modeling approach used (Johnson and Tversky, 1984).

3. As an anonymous reviewer commented, an important qualification is that Gigerenzer's analysis does not recognize the uncertainty surrounding air safety immediately after September 11, 2001, nor that the traffic safety data may be skewed toward the young and drunk, rather than those contemplating driving.