Top > JDR > Affect Heuristic with “Good-Bad” Criterion and Lin ...

single-dr.php

JDR Vol.6 No.2 pp. 219-229
(2011)
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2011.p0219

Paper:

Views over last 60 days: 631

Affect Heuristic with “Good-Bad” Criterion and Linguistic Representation in Risk Judgments

Shoji Tsuchida

Faculty of Safety Science, Kansai University, 7-1 Hakubai-cho, Takatsuki, Osaka 569-1098, Japan

Received:
January 1, 2011
Accepted:
March 7, 2011
Published:
April 1, 2011
Creative Commons License
Keywords:
affect heuristic, good-bad criterion, linguistic representation, perceived risk types, risk judgments
Abstract
Rational and normative risk judgments are made based on information on a risk object’s advantages and disadvantages, although many studies show that everyday heuristic risk judgment tends to be made based on limited information. I focused on the fact that affective heuristic (Slovic et al., 2004), one of the heuristic risk judgments, was affective judgment under “good-bad” criterion due to a trade-off in the perception of dangers and benefits, and showed by a social survey that female undergraduates in Japan and Eastern and Western Europe used the affect heuristic for various risk objects. In other words, an analysis of survey results on risk types perceived by female undergraduates inOsaka, London, Ljubljana, and Budapest showed that risk objects such as automobile driving, airplane travel, nuclear power plant, extremist group, and tobacco smoking were perceived as high-risk and low-return (Type 2) or low-risk and high-return (Type 3) [Study 1]. According to a tobacco smoking linguistic representation mail survey among university graduates of 24 to 71 years old in Japan, nonsmokers had relatively many adjectival and verbal linguistic representatives for tobacco smoking. This shows that affective risk judgment with a “good-bad” criterion was made by persons who perceived the risk object useless and the risk was taken involuntarily. [Study 2].
Cite this article as:
S. Tsuchida, “Affect Heuristic with “Good-Bad” Criterion and Linguistic Representation in Risk Judgments,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.6 No.2, pp. 219-229, 2011.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, “Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology,” The Guilford Press, 1999.
  2. [2] A. R. Damasio, “Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain,” Avon, 1994.
  3. [3] S. Dohle, C. Keller, and M. Siegrist, “Examining the Relationship Between Affect and Implicit Associations: Implications for Risk Perception,” Risk Analysis, Vol.30, pp. 1116-1128, 2010.
  4. [4] S. Epstein, “Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious,” American Psychologist, Vol.49, pp. 709-724, 1994.
  5. [5] L. Festinger, “A theory of cognitive dissonance,” Row Peterson, 1957.
  6. [6] M. L. Finucane, A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S. M. Johnson, “The affect heuristics in judgment of risks and benefits,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol.13, pp. 1-17, 2000.
  7. [7] B. Fishhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs, “How safe is safe enough: A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits,” Policy Sciences, Vol.9, pp. 127-152, 1978.
  8. [8] S. T. Fiske and S. E. Taylor, “Social cognition,” Random House, 1984.
  9. [9] I. Gavanski and C. Hui, “Natural sample space and uncertain belief,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.63, pp. 766-780, 1992.
  10. [10] J. D. Graham and J. B. Wiener (Eds.), “Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment,” Harvard University Press, 1997.
  11. [11] R. Hamill, T. D. Wilson, and R. E. Nisbett, “Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.39, pp. 578-589, 1980.
  12. [12] H. Hirose, “Risk perception,” Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 78-81, 1993 (in Japanese).
  13. [13] D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “On the psychology of prediction,” Psychological Review, Vol.80, pp. 237-251, 1973.
  14. [14] T. Kinoshita, “Risk perception and risk communication,” In The Society for Risk Analysis: Japan-Section (Ed.), Handbook of risk research, TBS Britannica, pp. 260-267, 2000 (in Japanese).
  15. [15] K. Lewin, “Field theory in social science,” Harper, 1951.
  16. [16] T. L. McDaniels, L. J. Axelrod, N. S. Cavanagh, and P. Slovic, “Perception of ecological risk to water environments,” Risk Analysis, Vol.17, pp. 341-352, 1997.
  17. [17] J. Nakanishi, “Environmental risks,” Iwanami-Shoten, 1995 (in Japanese).
  18. [18] R. E. Nisbett, H. Zukier, and R. E. Lemley, “The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information,” Cognitive Psychology, Vol.13, pp. 248-277, 1981.
  19. [19] C. E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum, “The measurement of meaning,” University of Illinois Press, 1957.
  20. [20] M. J. Rosenberg, “An analysis of affective-cognitive consistency,” In M. J. Rosenberg and C. I. Hovland (Eds.), Attitude organization and change, Yale University Press, 1960.
  21. [21] M. Rothbart, S. Fulero, C. Jensen, J. Howard, and B. Birrell, “From individual to group impressions: availability heuristics in stereotype formation,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.14, pp. 237-255, 1978.
  22. [22] G. R. Semin, and K. Fiedler, “The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.54, pp. 558-568, 1988.
  23. [23] G. R. Semin and K. Fiedler, “Language in applied contexts,” In G. R. Semin and K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied social psychology, Sage, pp. 91-110, 1996.
  24. [24] H. A. Simon, “Administrative behavior: A study of decisionmaking processes in administrative organizations,” The Free Press, 1947.
  25. [25] P. Slovic, “Perception of risk,” Science, Vol.236, pp. 280-285, 1987.
  26. [26] P. Slovic, N. Kraus, H. Lappe, and M. Major, “Risk perception of prescription drugs: Report on a survey in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol.82, S15-S20, 1991.
  27. [27] P. Slovic, M. L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor, “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality,” Risk Analysis, Vol.24, pp. 311-322, 2004.
  28. [28] P. E. Tetlock, and R. Boettger, “Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.57, pp. 388-398, 1989.
  29. [29] S. Tsuchida, “Review of researches on social attitudes,” Research in Social Psychology, Vol.7, No.3, pp. 147-162, 1992 (in Japanese).
  30. [30] S. Tsuchida, “Affect and social judgments: Decision-making and attitude-structures,” In Tsuchida, S. and Takemura, K. (Eds.), Affects versus behavior, cognition, and physiological phenomena: Social psychology of affects, Seishin-Shobo, pp. 103-126, 1996 (in Japanese).
  31. [31] S. Tsuchida, “Researches on persuasion as attitude-change,” In H. Fukada (Ed.), Handbook of persuasion psychology, Kitaohji-Shobo, pp. 45-90, 2002 (in Japanese).
  32. [32] S. Tsuchida, and M. Itoh, “Risk and affect in the youth: Benefit perspectives,” Kitaohji-Shobo, 2003 (in Japanese).
  33. [33] S. Tsuchida and M. Pergar-Kusčěr, “Female perception of risk with regard to cultural background,” Bulletin of the Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University, Vol.37, No.3, pp. 39-53, 2006.
  34. [34] A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,” Science, Vol.185, pp. 1124-1131, 1974.
  35. [35] A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,” Science, Vol. 211, pp. 453-458, 1981.

Creative Commons License  This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Oct. 01, 2024