IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i5p969-981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recollection Bias and Its Underpinnings: Lessons from Terrorism Risk Assessments

Author

Listed:
  • W. Kip Viscusi
  • Richard J. Zeckhauser

Abstract

Recollection bias is the phenomenon whereby people who observe a highly unexpected event hold current risk beliefs about a similar event that are no higher than their recollection of their prior beliefs. This article replicates and extends the authors’ previous study of recollection bias in relation to individuals’ perceptions of the risks of terrorism attacks. Over 60% of respondents in a national U.S. sample of over 900 adults believe that the current risk of a future terrorist attack by either an airplane or in a public setting is no higher than they recall having believed, respectively, before the 9/11 attack and before the Boston Marathon bombing. By contrast, a rational Bayesian model would update to a higher currently assessed risk of these previously uncontemplated events. Recollection bias is a persistent trait: individuals who exhibited this bias for the 9/11 attack exhibited it for the Boston Marathon bombing. Only one‐fifth of respondents are free of any type of recollection bias. Recollection bias is negatively correlated with absolute levels of risk belief. Recollection bias in relation to highly unexpected terrorist events—the belief that perceived risks did not increase after the surprise occurrence—dampens support for a variety of anti‐terrorism measures, controlling for the level of risk beliefs and demographic factors. Persistent recollection bias for both 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing is especially influential in diminishing support for protective policy measures, such as surveillance cameras in public places. Given that public attitudes influence policy, educating the public about risk is critical.

Suggested Citation

  • W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2017. "Recollection Bias and Its Underpinnings: Lessons from Terrorism Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 969-981, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:5:p:969-981
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12701
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12701?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viscusi, W Kip, 1999. "How Do Judges Think about Risk?," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 1(1-2), pages 26-62, Fall.
    2. Kelman, Mark & Fallas, David E & Folger, Hilary, 1998. "Decomposing Hindsight Bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 251-269, July-Aug..
    3. Keohane, Nathaniel O & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 2003. "The Ecology of Terror Defense," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 201-229, March-May.
    4. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Liu Shi & James W. Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2013. "Psychometric and Demographic Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Terrorist Threats and the Willingness to Pay for Terrorism Risk Management Programs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1802-1811, October.
    5. Roy, Devjani & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2015. "Grappling with Ignorance: Frameworks from Decision Theory, Lessons from Literature," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 33-65, April.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Fischhoff, Baruch & Gonzalez, Roxana M. & Small, Deborah A. & Lerner, Jennifer S., 2003. "Judged Terror Risk and Proximity to the World Trade Center," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 137-151, March-May.
    8. W. Viscusi, 2009. "Valuing risks of death from terrorism and natural disasters," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 191-213, June.
    9. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2005. "Recollection Bias and the Combat of Terrorism," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 27-55, January.
    10. John W. Pratt & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 1982. "Inferences from alarming events," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 1(3), pages 371-385.
    11. Gerd Gigerenzer, 2006. "Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire: Behavioral Reactions to Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 347-351, April.
    12. Sunstein, Cass R, 2003. "Terrorism and Probability Neglect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 121-136, March-May.
    13. Viscusi, W Kip & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 2003. "Sacrificing Civil Liberties to Reduce Terrorism Risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 99-120, March-May.
    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. Xinsheng Liu & Kent E. Portney & Jeryl L. Mumpower & Arnold Vedlitz, 2019. "Terrorism Risk Assessment, Recollection Bias, and Public Support for Counterterrorism Policy and Spending," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 553-570, March.

    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. W. Kip Viscusi & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2005. "Recollection Bias and the Combat of Terrorism," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 27-55, January.
    2. Kenneth D. Nguyen & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2405-2419, December.
    3. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, 2007. "Calculating Tragedy: Assessing The Costs Of Terrorism," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Friedrich Schneider & Tilman Brück & Daniel Meierrieks, 2010. "The Economics of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: A Survey (Part II)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1050, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. David Fielding & Anja Shortland, 2009. "Does television terrify tourists? Effects of US television news on demand for tourism in Israel," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 245-263, June.
    6. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    7. W. Kip Viscusi, 2015. "The heterogeneity of the value of statistical life: evidence and policy implications," Chapters, in: Carol Mansfield & V. K. Smith (ed.), Benefit–Cost Analyses for Security Policies, chapter 4, pages 78-116, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Bozzoli, Carlos & Müller, Cathérine, 2011. "Perceptions and attitudes following a terrorist shock: Evidence from the UK," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(S1), pages 89-106.
    9. Thomann, Christian & Pascalau, Razvan & Schulenburg, J.-Matthias Graf von der & Gas, Bruno, 2007. "Corporate Management of Highly Dynamic Risks: The Case of Terrorism Insurance in Germany," MPRA Paper 7221, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. W. Viscusi, 2009. "Valuing risks of death from terrorism and natural disasters," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 191-213, June.
    11. Rabaa, Simon & Geisendorf, Sylvie & Wilken, Robert, 2022. "Why change does (not) happen: Understanding and overcoming status quo biases in climate change mitigation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 45(1), pages 100-134.
    12. Xinsheng Liu & Kent E. Portney & Jeryl L. Mumpower & Arnold Vedlitz, 2019. "Terrorism Risk Assessment, Recollection Bias, and Public Support for Counterterrorism Policy and Spending," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 553-570, March.
    13. Bier, Vicki & Gutfraind, Alexander, 2019. "Risk analysis beyond vulnerability and resilience – characterizing the defensibility of critical systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 626-636.
    14. Yan, Jubo & Kniffin, Kevin M. & Kunreuther, Howard C. & Schulze, William D., 2020. "The roles of reason and emotion in private and public responses to terrorism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 778-796.
    15. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    16. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    17. Bruno Frey & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, 2009. "The life satisfaction approach to valuing public goods: The case of terrorism," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 317-345, March.
    18. Robert J. B. Goudie & Sach Mukherjee & Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Andrew J. Oswald & Stephen Wu, 2011. "Happiness as a Driver of Risk-Avoiding Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 3451, CESifo.
    19. Zeckhauser Richard, 2006. "Investing in the Unknown and Unknowable," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 1-41, September.
    20. De Figueiredo, John M. & De Figueiredo, Rui J. P. Jr., 2002. "Managerial Decision-Making in Non-Market Environments: A Survey Experiment," Working papers 4246-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • H56 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - National Security and War

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:5:p:969-981. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.