Risks and benefits are negatively related in people’s minds. Finucane et al. causally demonstrated that increasing risks of a hazard leads people to judge its benefits as lower. Vice versa, increasing benefits leads people to judge its risks as lower (original: r = −.74 [−0.92, −0.30]). This finding is consistent with an affective explanation, and the negative relationship is often presented as evidence for an affect heuristic. In two well-powered studies, using a more stringent analytic strategy, we replicated the original finding. We observed a strong negative relationship between judgments of risks and benefits across three technologies, although we do find that there was no change in risks when highlighting low benefits. We note that risks seem to be more responsive to manipulation (as opposed to benefits) and find evidence that the negative relationship can depend on incidental mood. We provided materials, data sets, and analyses on https://osf.io/sufjn/?view_only=6f8f5dc6ff524149a4ed5c6de9296ae8.
AlbarracínD.KumkaleG. T. (2003). Affect as information in persuasion: A model of affect identification and discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.453
2.
AlhakamiA. S.SlovicP. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085–1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
3.
AndersonA. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. Academic Press.
4.
AndradeE. B. (2005). Behavioral consequences of affect: Combining evaluative and regulatory mechanisms. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1086/497546
5.
BakkerM.van DijkA.WichertsJ. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459060
6.
BatemanI.DentS.PetersE.SlovicP.StarmerC. (2007). The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of simple gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.558
7.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BenthinA.SlovicP.MoranP.SeversonH.MertzC. K.GerrardM. (1995). Adolescent health-threatening and health-enhancing behaviors: A study of word association and imagery. Journal of Adolescent Health, 17(3), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/1054-139X(95)00111-5
9.
BhullarN.HineD. W.MarksA.DaviesC.ScottJ. G.PhillipsW. (2014). The affect heuristic and public support for three types of wood smoke mitigation policies. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health, 7(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-014-0243-1
10.
BohnerG.MoskowitzG. B.ChaikenS. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 33–68.
11.
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Avon.
12.
EfendićE.DračeS.RicF. (2019). The combination of multiple affective experiences and their impact on valuation judgments. Cognition and Emotion, 34(4), 684–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2019.1675597
13.
EfendicE. (2021). How do People Judge Risk? Availability may Upstage Affect in the Construction of Risk Judgments. Risk analysis: an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13729
FischhoffB.SlovicP.LichtensteinS.ReadS.CombsB. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
16.
GanzachY. (2000). Judging risk and return of financial assets. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2914
17.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347
KingJ.SlovicP. (2014). The affect heuristic in early judgments of product innovations. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(6), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1491
22.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
23.
LeBelE. P.McCarthyR. J.EarpB. D.ElsonM.VanpaemelW. (2018). A unified framework to quantify the credibility of scientific findings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918787489
24.
LeBelE. P.VanpaemelW.CheungI.CampbellL. (2019). A brief guide to evaluate replications. Meta-Psychology, 3,1–9. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2018.843
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
MacGregorD. G.SlovicP.DremanD.BerryM. (2000). Imagery, affect, and financial judgment. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 1(2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327760JPFM0102_2
29.
PachurT.HertwigR.WolkewitzR. (2014). The affect gap in risky choice: affect-rich outcomes attenuate attention to probability information. Decision, 1(1), 64.
30.
PetersE.VästfjällD.GärlingT.SlovicP. (2006). Affect and decision making: A “hot” topic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.528
31.
RachlinH. (2003). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (Vol. 79). MIT Press.
32.
RaueM.D’AmbrosioL. A.WardC.LeeC.JacquillatC.CoughlinJ. F. (2019). The influence of feelings while driving regular cars on the perception and acceptance of self-driving cars. Risk Analysis, 39(2), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13267
SchwarzN. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 289–308). SAGE.
35.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513
36.
SiegristM.SutterlinB. (2014). Human and nature-caused hazards: The affect heuristic causes biased decisions. Risk Analysis, 34(8), 1482–1494. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12179
37.
SkagerlundK.ForsbladM.SlovicP.VästfjällD. (2019). The affect heuristic and risk perception—Stability across elicitation methods and individual cognitive abilities. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mpvu8
38.
SkagerlundK.ForsbladM.SlovicP.VästfjällD. (2020). The affect heuristic and risk perception—Stability across elicitation methods and individual cognitive abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 970. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00970
SlovicP.FinucaneM.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the effects heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31(4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(02)00174-9
41.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
ThalerR.SunsteinC. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
44.
VästfjällD.PetersE.SlovicP. (2014). The affect heuristic, mortality salience, and risk: Domain-specific effects of a natural disaster on risk-benefit perception. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(6), 527–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12166
45.
VuorreM.BolgerN. (2018). Within-subject mediation analysis for experimental data in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 2125–2143. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0980-9
YangZ. J.AloeA. M.FeeleyT. H. (2014). Risk information seeking and processing model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12071
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
