Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Risk perception: Risk perception refers to individuals' subjective assessment or judgment of the likelihood and severity of potential threats or hazards. It's influenced by cognitive, emotional, and social factors, impacting how people perceive and respond to risks, shaping their behaviors, decisions, and attitudes toward uncertain events or situations. See also Risks, Decisions, Behavioral economics._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Economic Theories on Risk Perception - Dictionary of Arguments
Parisi I 69 Risk perception/Economic theories/Jolls: It is important, (...) that firms not be required to provide anecdotes reflecting highly unusual events, as an emphasis on worst-case scenarios could produce excessive responses (Sunstein, 2002)(1). If requirements of truthful accounts sweep in extremely unusual or unlikely scenarios, consumers might overreact - or alternatively they might lose faith and fail to attach any weight at all to the accounts. Note that worst-case scenarios are likely to be much more easily avoided with the proposal of a legal requirement that firms provide truthful accounts of actual occurrences than with the alternative strategy - frequently used by government - of public information campaigns concerning consumer risks. Such campaigns have often resulted in the use of extremely Parisi I 70 vivid and salient images, to the point of seriously risking overreaction or even backlash as a result of citizens’ perceptions of government “manipulation.” A well-known anti-drug advertisement from the 1980s, for instance, featured a picture of an egg frying in a pan with the voice-over, “This is your brain on drugs” (Dewan, 2004)(2). >Optimism bias/Economic theories. Parisi I 71 Optimism bias/automobile safety: A context in which evidence from a range of sources supports the existence of substantial optimism bias is automobile safety (for example, Arnould and Grabowski, 1981(3); Camerer and Kunreuther, 1989(4)). Underestimation of the risk of death or injury in an automobile accident may occur because people underestimate the likelihood that the average person will be involved in such an accident (Lichtenstein et al., 1978)(5); the likelihood that they will be involved in such an accident relative to the likelihood that the average person will be so involved (for example, Dejoy, 1989(6); Svenson, Fischhoff, and MacGregor, 1985(7)); or some combination of the two effects.* >Behavioral law/Economic theories. * See Jolls (1998)(8) for further discussion of the evidence in these studies. 1. Sunstein, Cass R. (2002). “Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases, and Law.” Yale Law Journal 112: 61–107. 2. Dewan, Shaila K. (2004). “The New Public Service Ad: Just Say ‘Deal With It’.” New York Times, January 11. 3. Arnould, Richard J. and Henry Grabowski (1981). “Auto Safety Regulation: An Analysis of Market Failure.” Bell Journal of Economics 12: 27–48. 4. Camerer, Colin F. and Howard Kunreuther (1989). “Decision Processes for Low Probability Events: Policy Implications.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8: 565–592. 5. Lichtenstein, Sarah, Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, Mark Layman, and Barbara Combs (1978). “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 4: 551–578. 6. DeJoy, David M. (1989). ‘The Optimism Bias and Traffic Accident Risk Perception.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 21: 333–340. 7. Svenson, Ola, Baruch Fischhoff, and Donald MacGregor (1985). “Perceived Driving Safety and Seatbelt Usage.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 17: 119–133. 8. Jolls, Christine (1998). “Behavioral Economics Analysis of Redistributive Legal Rules.” In Symposium: The Legal Implications of Psychology: Human Behavior, Behavioral Economics, and the Law, Vanderbilt Law Review 51: 1653–1677. Jolls, Christine, „Bounded Rationality, Behavioral Economics, and the Law“. In: Parisi, Francesco (ed) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics. Vol 1: Methodology and Concepts. NY: Oxford University Press._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Economic Theories Parisi I Francesco Parisi (Ed) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts New York 2017 |
||
> Counter arguments against Economic Theories
> Counter arguments in relation to Risk Perception
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-29