Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality

By Paul Slovic, Melissa L. Finucane, Ellen Peters, Donald G. MacGregor. 2004

3,912 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, General Decision Sciences, Sociology and Political Science, Cognitive Science & Psychology, Economics & Operations Research

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In General Decision Sciences

In Sociology and Political Science

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

In Economics & Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Anticipating Safety Issues in E2E Conversational AI: Framework and Tooling (2021, background): “They tend to lump multiple independent dimensions together as a single intuitive, highly-correlated, wholesale judgment (Slovic, 1987; Finucane et al., 2000a; Slovic & Peters, 2006; Slovic et al., 2013).”
Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior (2011, background): “First, this would be consistent with research showing that many decisions are informed by the integrated effect of affective and cognitive processes.(17) Second and less obvious, however, compared to other types of risks, flooding risk may be a special case.”
Understanding Public Hurricane Evacuation Decisions and Responses to Forecast and Warning Messages (2016, background): “These, along with other factors such as response efficacy (beliefs about how effective an activity is in protecting against the threat) and self-efficacy (beliefs about one’s ability to perform an activity), can influence protective decisions (e.g., Rogers 1983; Witte 1992, 1994; Loewenstein et al. ”
Perceptions of time in relation to climate change (2014, neutral): “64 – 66 Even if people have explicit goals for dealing with climate change, for example by reducing their personal carbon footprint, there are other issues that demand attention more readily.”
Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology (2012, background): “The affect heuristic (Slovic et al. 2002, 2004; cf. Zajonc 1980, 1997) has been considered another general purpose heuristic (Kahneman and Frederick 2002) and represents a reliance on good or bad feelings experienced in relation to a stimulus.”
What a Feeling: The Role of Immediate and Anticipated Emotions in Risky Decisions (2013, background): “Or, instead, the emotions that people feel at the time of their decision change how they perceive the worth or likelihood of those outcomes (Lerner & Keltner, 2001; Lerner et al., 2004; Mellers & McGraw, 2001; Slovic et al., 2004).”
Communication and Mental Processes: Experiential and Analytic Processing of Uncertain Climate Information (2007, background): “Slovic et al. (2004) define affect as a ‘‘‘faint whisper of emotion’, referring to the specific quality of goodness or badness (1) experienced as a feeling state (with or without consciousness) and (2) demarcating a positive or negative quality of a stimulus.”
Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world (2020, background): “These findings are generally consistent with the literature on “risk as analysis vs risk as feelings”, where having had visceral contact with the virus strongly engages the affective experiential system which is known to be more dominant in the processing of risk under these conditions (Loewenstein ”
The influence of mood on the willingness to take financial risks (2008, background): “A shortcoming associated with the traditional economic utility approach is that the theory fails to adequately explain many financial attitudes and behaviors, such as shifting of risk-aversion preferences when questions with similar payoffs are framed differently (Slovic et al. 2004).”
Judgmental Discounting and Environmental Risk Perception: Dimensional Similarities, Domain Differences, and Implications for Sustainability (2007, methodology): “The two evaluation strategies distinguished by Böhm and Pfister differ from the ones in Loewenstein et al. (2001) and Slovic et al. (2004).”