Slovic, Paul

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1794/18931

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 143

Open Access
Is Religiosity a Barrier to Organ Donations? Examining the Role of Religiosity and the Salience of a Religious Context on Organ-Donation Decisions
(The University of Chicago Press, 2022-03-10) Harel, Inbal; Mayorga, Marcus; Slovic, Paul; Kogut, Tehila
The disparity between the number of patients awaiting organ transplantation and organ availability increases each year. One of the chief obstacles to organ donation is religiosity. We examine the role of religiosity and other related beliefs in organ-donation decisions among Christians (studies 1 and 3) and Jews (study 2). In all samples, we found a significant interaction between religiosity and the salience of a religious context, manipulated by the order of the questions, such that religiosity (and specifically, extrinsic religion) was significantly associated with lower support for organ donations—but only when religious attitudes were elicited first, not when support for organ donation, or questions about other beliefs (study 3) appeared first. We examine possible mechanisms underlying this effect and discuss theoretical and practical implications of this finding to increase support for organ donations in both personal and policy decisions.
Open Access
Politicians Polarize and Experts Depolarize Public Support for COVID-19 Management Policies Across Countries
(PNAS, 2022-01-18) Flores, Alexandra; Cole, Jennifer C.; Dickert, Stephan; Eom, Kimin; Jiga-Boy, Gabriela M.; Kogut, Tehila; Loria, Riley; Mayorga, Marcus; Pedersen, Eric J.; Pereira, Beatriz; Sherman, David K.; Slovic, Paul; Vastfjall, Daniel; Van Boven, Leaf
Political polarization impeded public support for policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19, much as polarization hinders responses to other contemporary challenges. Unlike previous theory and research that focused on the United States, the present research examined the effects of political elite cues and affective polarization on support for policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries (n = 12,955): Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across countries, cues from political elites polarized public attitudes toward COVID-19 policies. Liberal and conservative respondents supported policies proposed by ingroup politicians and parties more than the same policies from outgroup politicians and parties. Respondents disliked, distrusted, and felt cold toward outgroup political elites, whereas they liked, trusted, and felt warm toward both ingroup political elites and nonpartisan experts. This affective polarization was correlated with policy support. These findings imply that policies from bipartisan coalitions and nonpartisan experts would be less polarizing, enjoying broader public support. Indeed, across countries, policies from bipartisan coalitions and experts were more widely supported. A follow-up experiment replicated these findings among US respondents considering international vaccine distribution policies. The polarizing effects of partisan elites and affective polarization emerged across nations that vary in cultures, ideologies, and political systems. Contrary to some propositions, the United States was not exceptionally polarized. Rather, these results suggest that polarizing processes emerged simply from categorizing people into political ingroups and outgroups. Political elites drive polarization globally, but nonpartisan experts can help resolve the conflicts that arise from it.
Open Access
The Fear of Personal Death and the Willingness to Commit to Organ Donation
(Sage, 2023-09) Kogut, Tehila; Pittarello, Andrea; Slovic, Paul
In three studies, with samples from different countries (the United States and Israel) and religions (Christians and Jews), we found that individual levels of fear of death significantly predicted lower willingness to register as organ donors (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, after being asked about their organ donation status (i.e., whether they are registered as donors), fear of death significantly increased among unregistered people. This did not occur among registered people, who had already faced the decision to become donors in the past (Study 2). Finally, providing non-registered (non-religious) people with a defense strategy to manage their fear of death increased their willingness to sign an organ donation commitment, partially by increasing their feelings of hopefulness. The implications of these findings for increasing organ donation registration are discussed.
Open Access
The prominence effect in health-care priority setting
(Cambridge University Press, 2022-11) Persson, Emil; Erlandsson, Arvid; Slovic, Paul; Vastfjall, Daniel; Tinghog, Gustav
People often choose the option that is better on the most subjectively prominent attribute — the prominence eﬀect. We studied the eﬀect of prominence in health care priority setting and hypothesized that values related to health would trump values related to costs in treatment choices, even when individuals themselves evaluated diﬀerent treatment options as equally good. We conducted pre-registered experiments with a diverse Swedish sample and a sample of international experts on priority setting in health care (n = 1348). Participants, acting in the role of policy makers, revealed their valuation for diﬀerent medical treatments in hypothetical scenarios. Participants were systematically inconsistent between preferences expressed through evaluation in a matching task and preferences expressed through choice. In line with our hypothesis, a large proportion of participants (General population: 92%, Experts 84% of all choices) chose treatment options that were better on the health dimension (lower health risk) despite having previously expressed indiﬀerence between those options and others that were better on the cost dimension. Thus, we ﬁnd strong evidence of a prominence eﬀect in health-care priority setting. Our ﬁndings provide a psychological explanation for why opportunity costs (i.e., the value of choices not exercised) are neglected in health care priority setting.
Open Access
Behavioral problems of adhering to a decision policy
(1973-05-01) Slovic, Paul
In my talk today, I am going to analyze the problems of adhering to policy from a psychological viewpoint. Some research will be described which indicates that we do indeed deviate from the policies we wish to follow. There are two key elements behind such deviations. The first sterns from changes over time in the goals, aspiration levels, or criteria that underlie our policies. Often, these changes are triggered by the fact that we are earning money or losing money. The second facet of nonadherence involves certain deficiencies in our thought processes. These deficiencies allow two villains—random error and systematic bias—to obliterate our policies, often without our awareness of the fact that this is happening. After reviewing research that demonstrates the ways in which we fail to adhere to policy, I'll close with a discussion of some techniques aimed at helping decision makers to follow their policies.
Open Access
The more who die, the less we care: Confronting genocide and the numbing arithmetic of compassion
(TEDxKakumaCamp, 2018-06-09) Slovic, Paul
In 1994 I carefully followed the reports of the genocide occurring in Rwanda where some 800,000 people were murdered in about 100 days. I was shocked by the indifference of the American public to this terrible news and angered by the refusal of the world’s governments to intervene and stop the bloodshed. I’m a researcher who studies the psychology of risk and decision making. And after the Rwandan genocide, my colleagues and I decided to study why we are so often indifferent to genocide and other mass atrocities and fail to intervene to prevent them from occurring. Through my research, I’ve learned something disturbing, and that is “the more who die, the less we care.” Today I am going to explain what our research shows about why we are so often indifferent to genocides and mass atrocities and then offer some recommendations about how we might overcome the mistakes we make in our “arithmetic of compassion.”
Open Access
Little cigars and cigarillos: Affect and perceived relative harm among U.S. adults, 2015.
(Addictive Behaviors, 2018-05-24) Majeed, Ban A.; Nyman, Amy; Sterling, Kymberle L.; Slovic, Paul
Similar to cigarette smoking, consumption of cigars delivers nicotine and byproducts of tobacco combustion and elevates the risk of addiction, illness, and premature death. This study examined the relationship of affect, perceived relative harm, and LCC smoking behavior among U.S. adults. Data were from Tobacco Products and Risk Perceptions Survey conducted in 2015. The study included a probability based sample of 6,051 adults (18+) drawn from an online research panel. A current LCC smoker was defined as having ever smoked LCCs and was currently smoking LCCs every day, somedays, or rarely. Participants were asked whether smoking LCCs was less harmful, had about the same level of harm, or was more harmful than smoking regular cigarettes. Feelings about LCCs were collected using word association technique. Descriptive and multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted. About 7% of the study participants were current LCC smokers. Adults with positive feelings had four-fold the adjusted odds to be current LCC smokers. Perceiving LCCs to be less harmful had 2.7 higher adjusted odds of being current LCC smokers. Compared to cigarettes, LCCs evoked more positive feelings among adults and these positive feelings were strongly associated with both perceiving LCCs as less harmful than cigarettes and with current LCC smoking. Cessation and prevention interventions would benefit from applying the principles of social marketing in which information is provided not only to inform consumers but also to evoke negative feelings and associations with LCC smoking.
Open Access
Vegetation Management in Ontario's Forests: Survey Research of Public and Professional Perspectives
(Decision Research, 1995-08) Slovic, Paul; Johnson, Stephen; Satterfield, Terre; Flynn, James; Gregory, Robin; Mertz, C.K.; Wagner, Robin
Open Access
When lives are in your hands: Dilemmas of the societal decision maker
(1990) Lichtenstein, Sarah; Gregory, Robin; Slovic, Paul; Wagenaar, Willem A.
A Societal Decision Maker (SDM) is a person who makes risky decisions on behalf of others. Most of the time, such decisions should be based on the wishes and beliefs pf the affected people. This paper explores a few cases in which it could be argued that the SDM, in making decision, should in good conscience disregard the desires of beliefs of the affected people. Several simplifying assumptions are made: The SDM uses decision analysis in making the decision; teh affected people speak with one voice on the matter under dispute; the SDM cannot delay the decision or otherwise avoid the disagreement; the SDM cannot delay the decision or otherwise avoid the disagreement; the SDM is motivated only to make the right decision; the SDM can effectuate an unpopular decision. In this context, the following dilemmas are discussed: (1) What if the people object to the use of decision analysis? (2) What if the people reject the axioms of decision analysis? (3) What risk attitude should the SDM adopt? (4) What concerns should be included in the analysis? (5) What if people are misinformed? (6) What if individual and societal perspectives differ? (7) Do people really want what they say they want? For some of these questions, we argue that the SDM should make decisions against the wishes of the people; for others, we are not sure how to resolve the dispute.
Open Access
Perceived Risk, Trust, and Nuclear Waste: Lessons from Yucca Mountain
(1993) Slovic, Paul; Layman, Mark; Flynn, James
Open Access
Perceived Risk and Attitudes Toward Nuclear Wastes: National and Nevada Perspectives
(1993) Slovic, Paul; Rosa, Eugene A.; Kunreuther, Howard; Desvousges, William H.
Open Access
Affect, Risk, and Decision Making
(2005) Slovic, Paul; Peters, Ellen; Finucane, Melissa; MacGregor, Donald G.
Risk is perceived and acted on in 2 fundamental ways. Risk as feelings refers to individuals' fast, instinctive, and intuitive reactions to danger. Risk as analysis brings logic, reason, and scientific deliberation to bear on risk management. Reliance on risk as feelings is described with "the affect heuristic." The authors trace the development of this heuristic across a variety of research paths. The authors also discuss some of the important practical implications resulting from ways that this heuristic impacts how people perceive and evaluate risk, and, more generally, how it influences all human decision making. Finally, some important implications of the affect heuristic for communication and decision making pertaining to cancer prevention and treatment are briefly discussed.
Open Access
Judged frequency of lethal events
(1978) Slovic, Paul; Lichtenstein, Sarah; Fischhoff, Baruch; Layman, Mark; Combs, Barbara
A series of experiments studied how people judge the frequency of death from various causes. The judgments exhibited a highly consistent but systematically biased subjective scale of frequency. Two kinds of bias were identified: (a) a tendency to overestimate small frequencies and underestimate larger ones, and (b) a tendency to exaggerate the frequency of some specific causes and to underestimate the frequency of others, at any given level of objective frequency. These biases were traced to a number of possible sources, including disproportionate exposure, memorability, or imaginability of various events. Subjects were unable to correct for these sources of bias when specifically instructed to avoid them. Comparisons with precious laboratory studies are discussed, along with methods for improving frequency judgments and the implications of the present findings for the management of societal hazards.
Open Access
Sex differences in the risks a person selects for himself and the risks he selects for someone else
(1967) Slovic, Paul; Weinstein, Malcolm S.; Lichtenstein, Sarah
102 undergraduates, working in pairs, selected bets for themselves and bets for the "other subject" to play. It was found that persons chose essentially the same probability of winning for the other person as for themselves, regardless of the sex of the other person. Women's choices were more conservative than men's choices.
Open Access
The psychometric study of risk perception
(1986) Slovic, Paul; Fischhoff, Baruch; Lichtenstein, Sarah
Open Access
Only new laws will spur seat-belt use [Editorial]
(1985) Slovic, Paul
Open Access
Images of disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power
(1979) Slovic, Paul; Lichtenstein, Sarah; Fischhoff, Baruch
Open Access
Informing people about risk
(1980) Slovic, Paul; Lichtenstein, Sarah; Fischhoff, Baruch
Designers of programs for informing the public about radiation hazards need to consider the difficulties inherent in communicating highly technical information about risk. To be effective, information campaigns must be buttressed by empirical research aimed at determining what people know, what they want to know, and how best to convey that information. Drawing upon studies of risk perception, this paper describes some of the problems that any information program must confront.
Open Access
Cue-How safe is safe enough?
(1983) Slovic, Paul; Fischhoff, Baruch
Open Access
Perceptions and acceptance of risk from radiation exposure in space flight
(1997) Slovic, Paul
There are a number of factors that influence how a person views a particular risk. These include whether the risk is judged to be voluntary and/or controllable, whether the effects are immediate or delayed, and the magnitude of the benefits that are to be gained as a result of being exposed to the risk. An important aspect of the last factor is whether those who suffer the risks are also those who stand to reap the benefits. The manner in which risk is viewed is also significantly influenced by the manner in which it is framed and presented. In short, risk does not exist in the world independent of our minds and cultures, waiting to be measured. Assessments of risk are based on models whose structure is subjective and associated evaluations are laden with assumptions whose inputs are dependent on judgments. In fact, subjectivity permeates every aspect of risk assessment. The assessment of radiation risks in space is no exception. The structuring of the problem includes judgments related to the probability, magnitude, and effects of the various types of radiation likely to be encountered and assumptions related to the quantitative relationship between dose and range of specific effects, all of which have associated uncertainties. For these reasons, there is no magic formula that will lead us to a precise level of acceptable risk from exposure to radiation in space. Acceptable risk levels must evolve through a process of negotiation that integrates a large number of social, technical, and economic factors. In the end, a risk that is deemed to be acceptable will be the outgrowth of the weighing of risks and benefits and the selection of the option that appears to be best.