Risk (Mis)perception

When greater risk reduces risk valuation

Uzma Khan, Daniella M. Kupor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The authors show that the value of a risky option decreases upon addition of risky prospects of the same valence. For instance, a medical drug with a potential side effect of seizures is viewed as less threatening when it also has smaller potential side effects, such as congestion and fatigue; travel insurance covering serious injury is viewed as less attractive when it also covers minor ailments; a lottery offering a chance to win an iPad is viewed as less attractive when it also offers a chance to win smaller prizes. As a result, consumers can perceive normatively more dangerous (beneficial) options to be less dangerous (beneficial) and normatively less dangerous (beneficial) options to be more dangerous (beneficial). This effect arises because people believe that larger prospects (e.g., seizures) are less likely than smaller prospects (e.g., congestion). Therefore, inclusion of smaller prospects by contrast makes a larger prospect appear less likely, which in turn reduces the perceived value of the risky option. Thus, this effect arises only when smaller prospects are added to a larger prospect, and only when the prospects are probabilistic. Cognitive load and feelings of personal control also moderate the effect.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)769-786
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Consumer Research
Volume43
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Fingerprint

seizure
fatigue
insurance
Values
travel
inclusion
drug
Congestion
Side effects
Seizures

Keywords

  • Medical decision making
  • Probability inference
  • Risk
  • Risk perception
  • Risky outcomes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business and International Management
  • Anthropology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Marketing

Cite this

Risk (Mis)perception : When greater risk reduces risk valuation. / Khan, Uzma; Kupor, Daniella M.

In: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 43, No. 5, 01.02.2017, p. 769-786.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4d8ac6ba0a174f9bac5b51add7d265e3,
title = "Risk (Mis)perception: When greater risk reduces risk valuation",
abstract = "The authors show that the value of a risky option decreases upon addition of risky prospects of the same valence. For instance, a medical drug with a potential side effect of seizures is viewed as less threatening when it also has smaller potential side effects, such as congestion and fatigue; travel insurance covering serious injury is viewed as less attractive when it also covers minor ailments; a lottery offering a chance to win an iPad is viewed as less attractive when it also offers a chance to win smaller prizes. As a result, consumers can perceive normatively more dangerous (beneficial) options to be less dangerous (beneficial) and normatively less dangerous (beneficial) options to be more dangerous (beneficial). This effect arises because people believe that larger prospects (e.g., seizures) are less likely than smaller prospects (e.g., congestion). Therefore, inclusion of smaller prospects by contrast makes a larger prospect appear less likely, which in turn reduces the perceived value of the risky option. Thus, this effect arises only when smaller prospects are added to a larger prospect, and only when the prospects are probabilistic. Cognitive load and feelings of personal control also moderate the effect.",
keywords = "Medical decision making, Probability inference, Risk, Risk perception, Risky outcomes",
author = "Uzma Khan and Kupor, {Daniella M.}",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/jcr/ucw058",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "769--786",
journal = "Journal of Consumer Research",
issn = "0093-5301",
publisher = "University of Chicago",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Risk (Mis)perception

T2 - When greater risk reduces risk valuation

AU - Khan, Uzma

AU - Kupor, Daniella M.

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - The authors show that the value of a risky option decreases upon addition of risky prospects of the same valence. For instance, a medical drug with a potential side effect of seizures is viewed as less threatening when it also has smaller potential side effects, such as congestion and fatigue; travel insurance covering serious injury is viewed as less attractive when it also covers minor ailments; a lottery offering a chance to win an iPad is viewed as less attractive when it also offers a chance to win smaller prizes. As a result, consumers can perceive normatively more dangerous (beneficial) options to be less dangerous (beneficial) and normatively less dangerous (beneficial) options to be more dangerous (beneficial). This effect arises because people believe that larger prospects (e.g., seizures) are less likely than smaller prospects (e.g., congestion). Therefore, inclusion of smaller prospects by contrast makes a larger prospect appear less likely, which in turn reduces the perceived value of the risky option. Thus, this effect arises only when smaller prospects are added to a larger prospect, and only when the prospects are probabilistic. Cognitive load and feelings of personal control also moderate the effect.

AB - The authors show that the value of a risky option decreases upon addition of risky prospects of the same valence. For instance, a medical drug with a potential side effect of seizures is viewed as less threatening when it also has smaller potential side effects, such as congestion and fatigue; travel insurance covering serious injury is viewed as less attractive when it also covers minor ailments; a lottery offering a chance to win an iPad is viewed as less attractive when it also offers a chance to win smaller prizes. As a result, consumers can perceive normatively more dangerous (beneficial) options to be less dangerous (beneficial) and normatively less dangerous (beneficial) options to be more dangerous (beneficial). This effect arises because people believe that larger prospects (e.g., seizures) are less likely than smaller prospects (e.g., congestion). Therefore, inclusion of smaller prospects by contrast makes a larger prospect appear less likely, which in turn reduces the perceived value of the risky option. Thus, this effect arises only when smaller prospects are added to a larger prospect, and only when the prospects are probabilistic. Cognitive load and feelings of personal control also moderate the effect.

KW - Medical decision making

KW - Probability inference

KW - Risk

KW - Risk perception

KW - Risky outcomes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028384660&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028384660&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jcr/ucw058

DO - 10.1093/jcr/ucw058

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 769

EP - 786

JO - Journal of Consumer Research

JF - Journal of Consumer Research

SN - 0093-5301

IS - 5

ER -