The name is absent



Provided by Cognitive Sciences ePrint Archive


Swiss Journal of Psychology 67 (1), 2008, 29-40

Original Communication

Risk-Specific Search for
Risk-Defusing Operators

Martina Wilke, Heike Haug,and Joachim Funke

University of Heidelberg, Germany

Active risk-defusing behavior is that performed by decision makers in risky situations when they look for additional actions that decrease the
risk and allow them to favor a riskier alternative. Our study demonstrates that risk-defusing behavior depends on the type of risk (normal, medi-
um, catastrophic, or global) as well as on the domain (health, economy, or ecology). In total, 12 scenarios (four types of risk from three risk do-
mains each) were constructed. Using the interview techniques of active information search and thinking aloud, we conducted 120 interviews
about decision-making processes with these scenarios. The results showed that active search for different risk-defusing operators depends on
the type of risk, but even more on the domain of the scenario. Results suggest a need for further research about a typology of risk situations in
which, besides formal classification criteria, content issues are also explored.

Keywords: risk, catastrophe, risk-defusing behavior, decision making, content effects

On August 28, 2005, there was an article on the homepage
of the German magazine
Spiegel Online that began:

Hurricane Katrina has become a “monster” storm. Lo-
cal authorities classified it as a Category 5 storm, the
most intense category. This afternoon the mayor of New
Orleans ordered the compulsory evacuation of the city.
Katrina could become the most dangerous storm that has
ever haunted the United States.

Imagine that you are a citizen of New Orleans and the storm
is approaching. You have to decide whether or not to leave
your home as recommended by the mayor. Would you leave
all your belongings behind? Your furniture? Your new busi-
ness? Would you use statistics to inform yourself about the
probability of the total destruction of dams and the flooding
of the city? Would you think about how you have previous-
ly decided in risky situations? Or would you start thinking
about how to reduce the potential damage, maybe by in-
stalling additional security devices, like sealing the doors and
windows or getting hold of emergency power supplies?

Psychological research on decision making under un-
certainty looks for answers to these and related questions.
Whereas previous research in this domain concentrated on
probabilities of risky outcomes in lottery-type decisions
(Jungermann, Pfister, & Fischer, 2004), an alternative ap-
proach studies decisions in quasi-realistic settings (e.g., Hu-
ber, 2004). When working on quasi-realistic decision prob-
lems, subjects are not interested in event probabilities, but
asked about additional actions they would take that could
reduce the potential risk or even eliminate it. The concept
of
active risk defusing states that such additional actions fa-
vor a decision to select the more risky option. This is in line
with non-experimental decision-making research (Lipshitz
& Strauss, 1997; March & Shapira, 1987; Shapira, 1995) as
well as research on risk and controllability (Vlek & Stallen,
1980; Weinstein, 1984). For example, Vlek and Stallen (p.
287) showed that controllable risks are judged to be less
risky, concluding: “Controllability of decision conse-
quences seems to be one of the most important psycholog-
ical factors in personal risk experience.” Yates (1992) re-
ported that decision makers try to create new options to
reduce risk without sacrificing advantages. Payne, Bettman,
and Johnson (1993) demonstrated such an adaptation to the
particular risky situation by referring to the dependence of
decision making on only minor task or context modifica-
tions. They referred to the decision makers’ ability to adapt
their strategy to different circumstances. The concept of
risk-
defusing operators
(RDOs) describes decision makers’ con-
trol or adaption strategies: In the hurricane example, the pos-
sibility of installing safeguards and taking other protective
measures as risk defusers may have led some New Orleans
citizens to decide to remain in the city despite the dire warn-
ings. Such decision making can be seen as a consequence
of RDOs. An RDO is defined as an “action, which a deci-
sion maker initiates in addition to the given options with the
intention to reduce the risk of such an alternative” (Huber,
2004, p. 130). There are three different kinds of RDOs (e.g.,
Huber, 1997; Huber, Beutter, Montoya, & Huber, 2001):

DOI 10.1024/1421-0185.67.1.29


Swiss J Psychol 67 (1), © 2008 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern



More intriguing information

1. Weak and strong sustainability indicators, and regional environmental resources
2. Commuting in multinodal urban systems: An empirical comparison of three alternative models
3. The name is absent
4. The Impact of Hosting a Major Sport Event on the South African Economy
5. Land Police in Mozambique: Future Perspectives
6. The name is absent
7. How Offshoring Can Affect the Industries’ Skill Composition
8. The name is absent
9. Knowledge and Learning in Complex Urban Renewal Projects; Towards a Process Design
10. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF RESEARCH ON WOMEN FARMERS IN AFRICA: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS; WITH AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
11. EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES
12. Strategic Investment and Market Integration
13. Rent Dissipation in Chartered Recreational Fishing: Inside the Black Box
14. Individual tradable permit market and traffic congestion: An experimental study
15. Business Cycle Dynamics of a New Keynesian Overlapping Generations Model with Progressive Income Taxation
16. Perfect Regular Equilibrium
17. Une nouvelle vision de l'économie (The knowledge society: a new approach of the economy)
18. Industrial districts, innovation and I-district effect: territory or industrial specialization?
19. Studies on association of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus and its effect on improvement of sorghum bicolor (L.)
20. The name is absent