Suchergebnisse

The affect heuristic can evoke a format effect so that different ways of expressing the level of likelihood of an event happening can cause different perceptions of the level of risk. We conducted 3 studies to test the hypothesis that a format effect is not always present at every level
of probability, and even when a format effect occurs, it depends on risk level and emotion. In Study 1, the risk of a flood threatening participants' homes (familiar risk) regardless of change in emotion, occurred only at a 5% probability level. In Study 2, when facing an unfamiliar risk (being
infected by Chikungunya fever), regardless of change in emotion, a format effect occurred at the level of 5% probability only when emotion was positive. In Study 3, a format effect occurred at a 5% probability level when prior emotion expectation was positive and risk consequences were emphasized.
We can conclude that the format effect depends on changes in risk level and emotions.

ABSTRACTAccording to the affect heuristic, people often rely upon their overall affective impression of a target to form judgments of risk. However, innovation research has largely characterized risk perception as a function of what the consumer knows rather than how they feel. In three studies, this research investigates the use of the affect heuristic in consumer judgments of product innovations. The findings indicate that judgments of risks and benefits associated with product innovations are inversely related and affectively congruent with evaluations of those innovations. Additionally, more affectively extreme evaluations are associated with increasingly disparate judgments of risk and benefit. This research contributes to our theoretical understanding of both consumers' evaluations of product innovations and the affect heuristic. Implications and suggestions for future research are also discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractWe consider asset prices and informational efficiency in a setting where owning stock confers direct utility due to an affect heuristic. Specifically, holding equity in brand name companies or those indulging in "socially desirable" activities (e.g., environmental consciousness) confers positive consumption benefits, whereas investing in "sin stocks" yields the reverse. In contrast to settings based on wealth considerations alone, expected stock prices deviate from expected fundamentals even when assets are in zero net supply. Stocks that yield high direct utility are, on average, more informationally efficient as they stimulate more entry into the market for these stocks and, consequently, more information collection. The analysis also accords with a value effect, high valuations of brand‐name stocks, abnormally positive returns on "sin stocks," volume premia in the cross‐section of returns, proliferation of mutual funds and ETFs, and yields untested implications. If, as psychological literature suggests, agents derive greater utility from successful companies by "basking in reflected glory," then asset prices react to public signals non‐linearly, leading to booms and busts, as well as crashes and recoveries.

We examined whether or not decision makers' level of trust in risk management institutions is an important determinant of their reliance on the affect heuristic for making evaluations and decisions. In Study 1 (N = 419), we examined how the delivery and context of warning information
may influence individuals' marginal trust in risk management institutions. In Study 2 (N = 414), we combined marginal trust with message probability to explore (a) how marginal trust and message extremity probability influence public trust in warning information, and (b) how public
trust in institutions moderates individuals' reliance on the affect heuristic in risk perceptions. In Study 3 (N = 45), we tested the generalizability of the moderating effect of public trust. Results showed that reliance on affect as a kind of heuristic was more marked among decision
makers with a high, vs. low, level of trust in the relevant institutions.

People are more concerned about the negative consequences of human hazards compared with natural hazards. Results of four experiments show that the same negative outcome (e.g., number of birds killed by an oil spill) was more negatively evaluated when caused by humans than when caused by nature. Results further show that when identical risk information was provided, participants evaluated nuclear power more negatively compared with solar power. The affect associated with the hazard per se influenced the interpretation of the new information. Furthermore, the affect experienced in the situation fully mediated the evaluation of the negative outcomes of a hazard. People's reliance on the affect heuristic is a challenge for acceptance of cost‐benefit analyses because equally negative outcomes are differently evaluated depending on the cause. Symbolically significant information and the affect evoked by this information may result in biased and riskier decisions.

The implicit association test (IAT) measures automatic associations. In the present research, the IAT was adapted to measure implicit attitudes toward technological hazards. In Study 1, implicit and explicit attitudes toward nuclear power were examined. Implicit measures (i.e., the IAT) revealed negative attitudes toward nuclear power that were not detected by explicit measures (i.e., a questionnaire). In Study 2, implicit attitudes toward EMF (electro‐magnetic field) hazards were examined. Results showed that cell phone base stations and power lines are judged to be similarly risky and, further, that base stations are more closely related to risk concepts than home appliances are. No differences between experts and lay people were observed. Results of the present studies are in line with the affect heuristic proposed by Slovic and colleagues. Affect seems to be an important factor in risk perception.

AbstractThe rapid expansion of coal seam gas (CSG) extraction across Australia has polarized public opinion about the risks, benefits, and the future of the industry. We conducted a randomized controlled experiment to assess the impact of CSG messaging on opposition to the CSG industry. Residents of a major Australian city (N = 549), aged between 21 and 87 years, were randomly assigned to view one of three brief video messages (pro‐CSG, anti‐CSG, or a neutral control) sourced from the Internet. They then completed measures assessing CSG affective associations, perceived risks and benefits of CSG, and degree of opposition to the CSG industry. A subsample of 317 participants also completed the measures of affect, risks, benefits, and opposition two weeks following the initial message presentation. Message type significantly predicted message effects in a pattern consistent with the affect heuristic model, although overall, the message effects were modest in magnitude. Respondents who viewed the anti‐CSG video (relative to the control) reported more negative affective responses to CSG, perceived higher risks, fewer benefits, and greater opposition to the CSG industry. Those who viewed the pro‐CSG video (relative to the control) reported stronger positive affective responses to CSG, perceived more CSG benefits and fewer risks, and expressed less opposition to the industry. The effects persisted over a two‐week interval for the anti‐CSG message, but not for the pro‐CSG message. Our findings suggest that people's risk perceptions and views about the acceptability of CSG are malleable by messaging that targets affective pathways.

Increasing the perception of legal risk via publicized litigation and lobbying for copyright law enforcement has had limited success in reducing unlawful content sharing by the public. We consider the extent to which engaging in file sharing online is motivated by the perceived benefits of this activity as opposed to perceived legal risks. Moreover, we explore moderators of the relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefits; namely, trust in industry and legal regulators, and perceived online anonymity. We examine these questions via a large two‐part survey of consumers of music (n = 658) and eBooks (n = 737). We find that perceptions of benefit, but not of legal risk, predict stated file‐sharing behavior. An affect heuristic is employed: as perceived benefit increases, perceived risk falls. This relationship is increased under high regulator and industry trust (which actually increases perceived risk in this study) and low anonymity (which also increases perceived risk). We propose that, given the limited impact of perceived legal risk upon unlawful downloading, it would be better for the media industries to target enhancing the perceived benefit and availability of lawful alternatives.