I analyzed intuitive frequency judgments for deaths from 11 well-known causes. Data analysis at individual subjects' level showed that the response-range effect noted in 1994 by Saito, Kawabata, and Yamagishi operates at the individual subjects' level. Also, the response tendencies exhibited by individuals were highly consistent across three different methods of judgment elicitation. Implications for risk-perception research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FischhoffB.SlovicP.LichtensteinS. (1981) Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risks. In O'RiordanT.TurnerR. K. (Eds.), Progress in resource management and environmental planning. New York: Wiley. Pp. 161–202.
2.
LichtensteinS.SlovicP.FischhoffB.LaymanM.CombsB. (1978) Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.
3.
McGillR.TukeyJ. W.LarsenW. A. (1978) Variations of box plots. The American Statistician, 32, 12–16.
4.
SattoS.KawabataM.YamagishiK. (submitted) A cross-national study of response range effect on frequency estimation of social facts in the U.S. and Japan. (Manuscript submitted for publication, 1994)
5.
YamagishiK. (1994) Consistencies and biases in risk perception: I. Anchoring process and response-range effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 651–656.
