Humans perceive and act on risk in two fundamental ways. Risk as feelings refers to individuals' instinctive and intuitive reactions to danger. Risk as analysis brings logic, reason, and scientific deliberation to bear on risk management. Reliance on risk as feelings is described as “the affect heuristic.” This article traces the development of this heuristic and discusses some of the important ways that it impacts how people perceive and evaluate risk.
GigerenzerG. (2004). Dread risk, September 11, and fatal traffic accidents. Psychological Science, 15, 286–287.
2.
LoewensteinG.F.WeberE.U.HseeC.K.WelchE.S. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.
3.
SlovicP. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Ltd.
4.
SlovicP.FinucaneM.L.PetersE.MacGregorD.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings. Risk Analysis, 24, 1–12.
5.
AlhakamiA.S.SlovicP. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085–1096.
6.
BodenhausenG.V.GabrielS.LinebergerM. (2000). Sadness and susceptibility to judgmental bias: The case of anchoring. Psychological Science, 11, 320–323.
7.
Denes-RajV.EpsteinS. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819–829.
8.
EpsteinS. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.
9.
FetherstonhaughD.SlovicP.JohnsonS.M.FriedrichJ. (1997). Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 283–300.
10.
FinucaneM.L.AlhakamiA.SlovicP.JohnsonS.M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.
11.
FischhoffB.SlovicP.LichtensteinS.ReadS.CombsB. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127–152.
12.
LernerJ.S.GonzalezR.M.SmallD.A.FischhoffB. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.
13.
LernerJ.S.KeltnerD. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 473–493.
14.
LoewensteinG.F.WeberE.U.HseeC.K.WelchE.S. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.
15.
PetersE.BurrastonB.MertzC.K. (2004). An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: Cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Analysis, 24, 1349–1367.
16.
PetersE.LipkusI.DiefenbachM.A. (2006). The functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferences. Journal of Communication, 56, S140–S162.
17.
PetersE.VästfjällD.SlovicP.MertzC.K.MazzoccoK.DickertS. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407–413.
18.
RottenstreichY.HseeC.K. (2001). Money, kisses and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of probability weighting. Psychological Science, 12, 158–190.
19.
SchwarzN.CloreG.L. (1988). How do I feel about it? Informative functions of affective states. In FiedlerK.ForgasJ. (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and social behavior (pp. 44–62). Toronto, ON, Canada: Hogrefe International.
20.
SlovicP.FinucaneM.L.PetersE.MacGregorD.G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
SlovicP.MonahanJ.MacGregorD.G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and risk communication: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 271–296.
22.
SunsteinC.R. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 121–136.
