Previous research has demonstrated an inverse relationship between judgments of risk and benefit for various hazards. Risk and benefit seem to be confounded in people's minds, possibly because a common 'affective pool' is accessed when the risk or benefit of specific hazards is judged. We examined the role of affect in the inverse relationship by eliciting risk and benefit judgments of a range of hazards in two studies: one using a time-pressure methodology, and the other experimentally manipulating the affective information provided. In Study 1, the results showed that risk and benefit judgments of 20 hazards were more strongly negatively correlated under a time-pressure condition (mean r = -0.37) than a no time-pressure condition (mean r = -0.12). That is, the confounding between perceived risk and perceived benefit seemed to be stronger when the opportunity for logical deliberation was restricted, and presumably reliance on affective reactions to hazards was increased. In Study 2, we found that manipulating the salience of one affective dimension of information about hazards affected ratings on the non-manipulated dimension. That is, showing people high benefit (risk) information led to decreased risk (benefit) ratings, and showing people low benefit (risk) information led to increased risk (benefit) ratings. The latter results were contrary to the pattern of ratings expected if people used a more cognitive strategy such as the availability heuristic. Both studies suggest that people seem prone to using an 'affect heuristic' which improves judgmental efficiency by deriving risk and benefit evaluations from overall affective reactions.

Work supported in part by the Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Go to . . .

1998 SRA-Europe Table of Contents
1998 SRA-Europe Author Index
Main Abstracts Menu Page
RiskWorld Home Page