Abstract
We studied how evaluation of changes in low-probability risks are affected by reference points and framing effects. Subjects considered hypothetical situations with one or two low-probability risks. Different frames were used to describe changes in risk levels. In the first experiment, subjects chose between risk-reduction options that achieved the same overall risk reduction: large reduction of one risk vs. equal (smaller) reduction of two risks. When the risks were described as losses relative to the no-risk ideal, more subjects were indifferent between the options than when the same options were described as gains relative to the status quo. In the latter case subjects preferred equal reduction of both risks, unless one risk could be reduced to zero. In a related experiment, subjects were less willing to pay any price for a commodity that carried small increases in two risks than for a commodity carrying a comparable large increase in one risk. In other experiments, subjects evaluated single changes in risks rather than comparing or evaluating pairs of changes. Subjects again placed particularly high value on reducing any risks to zero, and they were even more inclined to do so when some other risk would also be reduced to zero. In a final experiment, elimination of risk was found to be less highly valued if its source was not fully eliminated, and a status-quo effect was found. The findings are interpreted in terms of reference theories of choice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hoehn, J.P., and A. Randall. (1989). “Too Many Proposals Pass the Benefit Cost Test,”American Economic Review 79, 544–551.
Jones-Lee, Michael W. (1989).The Economics of Safely and Physical Risk. Oxford: Basis Blackwell.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler. (1990). “Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem.”Journal of Political Economy 98, 1325–1348.
Majid, I., J. A. Sinden, and A. Randall. (1983). “Benefit Evaluation of Increments to Existing Systems of Public Facilities,”Land Economics 89, 377–392.
Mitchell, Robert C., and Richard T. Carson. (1989).Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington: Resources for the Future.
Smith, V. Kerry, and William H. Desvousges. (1987). “An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes,”Journal of Political Economy 95, 89–114.
Thaler, Richard H. (1985). “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,”Marketing Science 4, 199–214.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,”Science 211, 453–458.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty, “Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
Viscusi, W. Kip, Wesley A. Magat, and Joel Huber. (1987). “An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuation of Multiple Health Risks,”Rand Journal of Economics 18, 465–479.
Viscusi, W. Kip, Wesley A. Magat, and Joel Huber. (1991). “Pricing Environmental Health Risks: Survey Assessments of Risk-Risk and Risk-Dollar Trade-Offs for Chronic Bronchitis,”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21, 32–51.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-88-09299).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ritov, I., Baron, J. & Hershey, J.C. Framing effects in the evaluation of multiple risk reduction. J Risk Uncertainty 6, 145–159 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065355
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065355