The affect heuristic falls within the category of automatic information processing in terms of dual-processing theories, i.e., the fast and simplifying heuristics ( Kahneman, 2011). On the other hand, if the information was created to decrease the benefit of a given technology, participants perceived its risk as being larger. For example, if the information was created to decrease the risk of a given technology, participants perceived its benefit as being larger. A negative correlation between the benefit and risk was obtained as a result. They were subsequently asked to perform their own evaluation. Participants were provided with information, which aimed to increase or decrease the risk or benefit (four experimental conditions) of a technology. The authors speculated that providing information regarding only one attribute (benefit or risk) would form the evaluation of the other (non-manipulated) attribute in the same direction. (2000) involved the manipulation of affective judgment by providing selective information about the risks or benefits of three different technologies: nuclear power, natural gas, and food preservatives. Under time pressure, correlations were stronger as people who have less time to undertake an evaluation rely more on initial impressions rather than deliberation. A negative correlation between judgments of the benefit and risk was reported (the larger the benefit, the smaller the risk, and vice versa). Participants were asked to judge the benefits and risks of 23 different activities. (2000) showed that the affect suppresses the weighing of costs and benefits and introduces a unidirectional (entirely positive or negative) evaluation of the attributes of the object being assessed. The first empirical study by Finucane et al. The financial market provides a typical example whereby individual investors mistakenly perceive high expected returns as having a strong low-risk correlation ( Shefrin, 2005). This bias is called the affect heuristic. On the other hand, if people have negative feelings toward an object, they are more likely to perceive the benefits as low and the risk as high. If people exhibit positive feelings toward an activity or object, they are more likely to judge the benefits as high and the risk as low. However, a common perception of the correlation is biased. In reality, benefits are usually positively correlated with risks. However, when subjects judged the dictionaries side by side, they priced Dictionary B higher than Dictionary A because it was vastly superior in the most practically important dimension, the number of entries.ĭecision theory assumes benefits and risks, which are appeared to be distinct concepts. When judging separately, Dictionary A was priced to be higher than Dictionary B – the torn cover elicited a negative affective impression and strongly devalued the bigger dictionary. Two exemplary dictionaries were used: Dictionary A with 10,000 entries in a perfect condition and Dictionary B with 20,000 entries but with a torn cover. This may be especially relevant in situations when different objects are judged separately rather than compared side by side – as demonstrated by H(see 1998), who asked subjects how much they were willing to pay for a used music dictionary. The fact that some decision processes are instant and not deliberative implies a shortcut of some sort the judgment will likely be simplified, dominated by the most salient – at that moment – affective cue. (2000) call “rapid affective algebra.” The use of positive and negative impressions (affective tags) as cues in making judgments is known as the halo effect ( Slovic et al., 2002). Rather than carefully calculating expected utilities, as the normative decision theory predicts, people perform a process which Finucane et al. The judgment is initially quick, intuitive, and affective, which has a profound effect on our assessment of a decision problem. People rely on feelings of “goodness” or “badness” in making judgments or decisions ( Seabright, 2010). How do people involved in the hard coal mining industry perceive the economic benefits of hard coal usage, the environmental impact of hard coal mining, and the personal safety hazard of working underground? The aim of the present study was to answer this question: With this in mind, we examined their opinions not only on the benefits but also on the riskiness of hard coal mining. They seem to perceive hard coal mining as beneficial. There are social groups that object to the transformation from hard coal usage to green energy. In modern democracies, the social acceptance of costly and ambitious environmental policies is crucial.
0 kommentar(er)
