IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating everyday risk: Subjective judgments are related to objective risk, mapping of numerical magnitudes and previous experience

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah A D Keage
  • Tobias Loetscher

Abstract

We aimed to investigate individual differences that associate with peoples’ acute risk perception for activities such as walking and giving birth, including objective risk and the mapping of numerical magnitudes. The Amazon Mechanical Turk platform was used, with 284 participants recruited (40% female) ranging between 19 and 68 years. Participants had to indicate the positions of (1) the relative death risk of activities on a horizontal-line with ‘very low risk of death’ and ‘very high risk of death’ as left and right anchors respectively and (2), numerical magnitudes on a horizontal-line ranging 0–1000. The MicroMort framework was used to index acute risk of death (one/million chance of dying from an accident). Previous experience with the activities, handedness, along with risk propensity and unrealistic optimism were also measured. Linear mixed-effects modelling was used to investigate predictors of subjective MicroMort judgments. Individuals subjectively judged activities to be riskier if the activity was objectively riskier, if they over-estimated on the numerical task (more so for low-risk activities as compared to high-risk), or if they had not experienced the activity previously. The observed relationship between the number line task and everyday risk judgments is in keeping with the idea of a common magnitude representation system. In conclusion, individuals are able to discriminate between activities varying in risk in an absolute sense, however intuition for judging the relative differences in risk is poor. The relationship between the misjudging of both risks and numerical magnitudes warrants further investigation, as may inform the development of risk communication strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah A D Keage & Tobias Loetscher, 2018. "Estimating everyday risk: Subjective judgments are related to objective risk, mapping of numerical magnitudes and previous experience," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207356
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207356
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207356&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moore, Don A. & Cain, Daylian M., 2007. "Overconfidence and underconfidence: When and why people underestimate (and overestimate) the competition," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 197-213, July.
    2. Coren, S., 1989. "Left-handedness and accident-related injury risk," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 79(8), pages 1040-1041.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Harrison, James D. & Young, Jane M. & Butow, Phyllis & Salkeld, Glenn & Solomon, Michael J., 2005. "Is it worth the risk? A systematic review of instruments that measure risk propensity for use in the health setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 1385-1396, March.
    5. Ortwin Renn, 1998. "Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 49-71, January.
    6. Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Dylan M. Smith & Peter A. Ubel & Angela Fagerlin, 2007. "Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 663-671, September.
    7. Bechara, Antoine & Damasio, Antonio R., 2005. "The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 336-372, August.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:33-47 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Erik Hoelzl & Aldo Rustichini, 2005. "Overconfident: Do You Put Your Money On It?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(503), pages 305-318, April.
    10. Hoffmann, Arvid O.I. & Post, Thomas & Pennings, Joost M.E., 2013. "Individual investor perceptions and behavior during the financial crisis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 60-74.
    11. Colin D Mathers & Dejan Loncar, 2006. "Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    13. Schoenbaum, M., 1997. "Do smokers understand the mortality effects of smoking? Evidence from the health and retirement survey," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(5), pages 755-759.
    14. Angela Fagerlin & Catharine Wang & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "Reducing the Influence of Anecdotal Reasoning on People’s Health Care Decisions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Statistics?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 398-405, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrei LINU & Dãnu? DUMITRA?CU, 2019. "Subjective Risk Perception In Esf Funded Projects In Romania," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 13(1), pages 882-902, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brice Corgnet & Camille Cornand & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2020. "Negative Tail Events, Emotions & Risk Taking," Working Papers 2016, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    2. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    3. Vincent Laferrière & David Staubli & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Explaining Excess Entry in Winner-Take-All Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1050-1069, February.
    4. Cheung, Stephen L. & Johnstone, Lachlan, 2017. "True Overconfidence, Revealed through Actions: An Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 10545, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Bruhin, Adrian & Santos-Pinto, Luís & Staubli, David, 2018. "How do beliefs about skill affect risky decisions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 350-371.
    6. Brice Corgnet & Camille Cornand & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2020. "Tail events, emotions and risk taking," Working Papers halshs-02613344, HAL.
    7. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Heo, Wookjae & Grable, John E. & Rabbani, Abed G., 2018. "A test of the relevant association between utility theory and subjective risk tolerance: Introducing the Profit-to-Willingness ratio," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 84-88.
    9. Isabelle Vialle & Luis Santos-Pinto & Jean-Louis Rullière, 2011. "Self-Confidence and Teamwork : An Experimental Test," Working Papers 1126, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    10. Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2007. "Investors Facing Risk: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation Between Risky and Risk-Free Assets," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 28063, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    11. Ryvkin, Dmitry & Krajč, Marian & Ortmann, Andreas, 2012. "Are the unskilled doomed to remain unaware?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1012-1031.
    12. Peter A. F. Fraser‐Mackenzie & Tiejun Ma & Ming‐Chien Sung & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2019. "Let's Call it Quits: Break‐Even Effects in the Decision to Stop Taking Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1560-1581, July.
    13. Kathleen McColl & Marion Debin & Cecile Souty & Caroline Guerrisi & Clement Turbelin & Alessandra Falchi & Isabelle Bonmarin & Daniela Paolotti & Chinelo Obi & Jim Duggan & Yamir Moreno & Ania Wisniak, 2021. "Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, December.
    14. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    15. Danková, Katarína & Servátka, Maroš, 2019. "Gender robustness of overconfidence and excess entry," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 179-199.
    16. Laurent Germain & Fabrice Rousseau & Anne Vanhems, 2014. "Irrational Market Makers," Finance, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, vol. 35(1), pages 107-145.
    17. Raphael Guber & Martin G. Kocher & Joachim Winter, 2021. "Does having insurance change individuals' self‐confidence?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(2), pages 429-442, June.
    18. Robert Bordley & Marco Licalzi & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "A Target-Based Foundation for the “Hard-Easy Effect” Bias," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Ugur Can (ed.), Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship, pages 659-671, Springer.
    19. Garcia-Retamero, Rocio & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2013. "Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 27-33.
    20. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT)Scale for Adult Populations," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-24, CIRANO.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207356. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.