Policy Shock Recalibrating Risk and Regulation after Oil Spills, Nuclear Accidents and Financial Crises
Book contents
- Policy Shock
- Policy Shock
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Conceptual Terrain of Crises and Risk Perceptions
- 2 Economic Analysis, Risk Regulation, and the Dynamics of Policy Regret
- 3 Revised Risk Assessments and the Insurance Industry
- 4 Understanding Public Risk Perception and Responses to Changes in Perceived Risk
- 5 Focusing Events, Risk, and Regulation
- 6 The Story of Risk
- Part II Case Studies on Offshore Oil Spills
- Part III Case Studies on Nuclear Accidents
- Part IV Case Studies of Financial Crises
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
4 - Understanding Public Risk Perception and Responses to Changes in Perceived Risk
from Part I - The Conceptual Terrain of Crises and Risk Perceptions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 October 2017
Book contents
- Policy Shock
- Policy Shock
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Conceptual Terrain of Crises and Risk Perceptions
- 2 Economic Analysis, Risk Regulation, and the Dynamics of Policy Regret
- 3 Revised Risk Assessments and the Insurance Industry
- 4 Understanding Public Risk Perception and Responses to Changes in Perceived Risk
- 5 Focusing Events, Risk, and Regulation
- 6 The Story of Risk
- Part II Case Studies on Offshore Oil Spills
- Part III Case Studies on Nuclear Accidents
- Part IV Case Studies of Financial Crises
- Part V Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Policy ShockRecalibrating Risk and Regulation after Oil Spills, Nuclear Accidents and Financial Crises, pp. 58 - 81Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Becker, G. S. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., and Read, D. (1994). What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 1. Mental Models. Risk Analysis 14, 959–70.Google Scholar
Boyd, R., and Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bracha, A., and Weber, E. U. (2012). A Psychological Perspective on Control, Uncertainty, Risk, and Panic. Working Paper, Center for Decision Sciences.Google Scholar
Clayton, M. (2011). Germany to Phase Out Nuclear Power. Could the US Do the Same? Christian Science Monitor. June 7. www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0607/Germany-to-phase-out-nuclear-power.-Could-the-US-do-the-same/.Google Scholar
Clemens, R. T. (1997). Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Dake, K. (1991). Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk: An Analysis of Contemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22: 61–82.Google Scholar
Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. D (1978). The New Environmental Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results, Journal of Environmental Education 9: 10–19.Google Scholar
Einhorn, H. J. (1986). Accepting Error to Make Less Error. Journal of Personality Assessment 50(3): 387–95.Google Scholar
Erev, I., and Barron, G. (2005). On Adaptation, Maximization, and Reinforcement Learning among Cognitive Strategies. Psychological Review 112(4): 912–31.Google Scholar
Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Nicholson, N., Soane, E., and Willman, P. (2003). Trading on Illusions: Unrealistic Perceptions of Control and Trading Performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76(1):53–68.Google Scholar
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., and Johnson, S. M. (2000). The Affect Heuristic in Judgements of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13: 1–17.Google Scholar
Hansen, J., Marx, S., and Weber, E. U. (2004). The Role of Climate Perceptions, Expectations, and Forecasts in Farmer Decision Making: The Argentine Pampas and South Florida. Technical Report 04–01. Palisades, NY: International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRI).Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., and Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice. Psychological Science 15(8): 534–39.Google Scholar
Huberman, G. (2001). Familiarity Breeds Investment. Review of Financial Studies 14 (3): 659–80.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (2000). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: A Critical Edition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
International Atomic Energy Association. (2008). 50 Years of Nuclear Energy. www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC48/Documents/gc48inf-4_ftn3.pdf.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics.” American Economic Review 93(5): 1449–75.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–92.Google Scholar
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., and Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis 8: 177–87.Google Scholar
Katz, D. (2011). Hormone-Replacement Follies: A Brief History. Huffington Post, April 13. www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/hormone-replacement-_b_847884.html.Google Scholar
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Washington, DC: Beard Books (reprinted 2002).Google Scholar
Kupperman, K. O. (1982). The Puzzle of the American Climate in the Early Colonial Period. The American Historical Review 87: 1262–89.Google Scholar
Langer, E. J. (1975). The Illusion of Control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(2): 311–28.Google Scholar
Langer, E. J., and Roth, J. (1975). Heads I Win, Tails it’s Chance: The Illusion of Control as a Function of the Sequence of Outcomes in a Purely Chance Task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(6): 951–55.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Climatic Change 77: 45–72.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Y.U.S. of Forestry, E. Studies, Y.P. on C. Change, and G.M.U.C. for C.C. Communication (2008). Global Warming’s“ Six America”: An Audience Segmentation. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., and Welch, N. (2001). Risk as Feelings. Psychological Bulletin 127(2): 267–86.Google Scholar
Leone, R. C. and Anrig, G. Jr (2003). The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. New York: Century Foundation.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D., and Weber, E. U. (1986). An Axiomatic Theory of Conjoint, Expected Risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 30: 188–205Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Gärling, T., and Slovic, P. (2006). Affect and Decision Making: A “Hot” Topic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19: 79–85. doi: 10.1002/bdm.528.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2009). Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Plous, S. (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Samuelson, W., and Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1(1): 7–59.Google Scholar
Sarin, R. K., and Weber, M. (1993). Risk–Value Models. European Journal of Operations Research 70: 135–49.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theory and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In Zanna, M. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25). New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development and Death. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Sharpe, W. F. (1964). Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk, Journal of Finance, 19(3): 425–42.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. (1983), Adjustment to Threatening Events: A Theory of Cognitive Adaptation, American Psychologist, 38 (11): 1161–73.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., and Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective On Mental-Health. Psychological Bulletin 103(2): 193–210.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4): 297–323.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. (1944/1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, E. H. (1834). De pulsu, resorptione, auditu et tactu. Anatationes anatomicae et physiologicae. Leipzig: Koehler.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. (1994). From Subjective Probabilities to Decision Weights: The Effect of Asymmetric Loss Functions on the Evaluation of Uncertain Outcomes and Events. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 228–42.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. (1997). Perception and Expectation of Climate Change: Precondition for Economic and Technological Adaptation. In Bazerman, M., Messick, D., Tenbrunsel, A., and Wade-Benzoni, K. (eds.), Psychological Perspectives to Environmental and Ethical Issues in Management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 314–41.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. (2001). Decision and Choice: Risk, Empirical Studies. In Smelser, N. J. and Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Limited, pp. 13347–51.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. (2006). Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming Does Not Scare Us (Yet). Climatic Change 77: 103–20.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. (2010). Risk Attitude and Preference. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(1): 79–88.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Blais, A. -R., and Betz, N. (2002). A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15: 263–90Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., and Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful Judgment and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology 60: 53–86.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., and Blais, A.–R. (2004). Predicting Risk-Sensitivity in Humans and Lower Animals: Risk as Variance or Coefficient of Variation. Psychological Review 111(2): 430–45.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Siebenmorgen, N., and Weber, M. (2005). Communicating Asset Risk: How Name Recognition and the Format of Historic Volatility Information Affect Risk Perception and Investment Decisions. Risk Analysis 25(3): 597–609.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., and Stern, P. C. (2011). Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States. American Psychologist 66: 315–28.Google Scholar
Weinstein, N. D., Lyon, J. E., Rothman, A. J. and Cuite, C. L. (2000). Preoccupation and Affect as Predictors of Protective Action Following Natural Disaster. British Journal of Health Psychology, 5: 351–63.Google Scholar
Yechiam, E., Barron, G., and Erev, I. (2005). The Role of Personal Experience in Contributing to Different Patterns of Response to Rare Terrorist Attacks. Journal of Conflict Resolution 49: 430–39.Google Scholar
Zaval, L., Keenan, E. A., Johnson, E. J., and Weber, E. U. (2014). How Warm Days Lead to Increased Belief in Global Warming. Nature Climate Change. 4(2): 143–47.Google Scholar
- 10
- Cited by