Paul Slovic

Last updated

Paul Slovic
Paul300dpi.jpg
NationalityAmerican
Alma mater Stanford University
University of Michigan
Known for Risk perception
Behavioural sciences
Risk analysis
Communication sciences
Awards Bower Award (2022)
Scientific career
Fields Decision Sciences, Risk
Institutions University of Oregon
University of Padova
Hebrew University
American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Paul Slovic (born 1938 in Chicago) is a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and the president of Decision Research. Decision Research is a collection of scientists from all over the nation and in other countries that study decision-making in times when risks are involved. He was also the president for the Society of Risk Analysis until 1984. He earned his undergraduate degree at Stanford University in 1959 and his PhD in psychology at the University of Michigan in 1964 and has received honorary doctorates from the Stockholm School of Economics and the University of East Anglia. [1] He is past president of the Society for Risk Analysis and in 1991 received its Distinguished Contribution Award. In 1993, he received the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the American Psychological Association, and in 1995 he received the Outstanding Contribution to Science Award from the Oregon Academy of Science. In 2016 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. [2]

Contents

Slovic studies human judgment, decision making, and risk perception, and has published extensively on these topics. He is considered, with Baruch Fischhoff and Sarah Lichtenstein, a leading theorist and researcher in the risk perception field (the psychometric paradigm, [3] the affect heuristic, and "risk as feeling" [4] ).

His most recent work examines “psychic numbing” [5] and the failure to respond to mass human tragedies. [6]

Major theories

Affect Heuristic - This is the ability to make a quick emotional decision in time of crisis. Slovic says that even if there is a bad situation, if we have positive feelings toward something it lowers people's perception of risks but enhances their perception of benefits. [7]

Slovic contributed towards the psychometric paradigm of risk perception. He found that people usually perceived most activities as having a high risk. He also found that if someone gained pleasure from something they saw the risk level being low. This shows that risk levels can depend on the individual's personal belief and emotions of a specific risk. [8]

Psychophysical Numbing - This is the idea that people are not as affected by the loss of life depending on how it is presented. Slovic says that people cannot connect on an emotional level when being presented with large numbers. [9]

Important publications

"Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events" - In this publication Slovic discusses what research says about people's perceived risk when associated with extreme events. The way people think action should take place is based on their perceptions. These perceptions can vary from people's status, background, education, biology, etc. The different perceptions decide how risky a choice of action is in extreme events over another. Risk perceptions are connected between emotions and reason, which creates rational behavior. Slovic explains what risk actually is. He says it is a hazard, probability, it has consequences, and threat. Since it has so many subjective meanings tied to it, it often causes communication failure. Risk perceptions are studied in three major ways: axiomatic measurement paradigm, socio-cultural paradigm, and psychometric paradigm. The axiomatic measurement looks at how people view consequences of a risky choice and how it might impact their lives. The Socio-cultural looks at the “effect of group and culture level variable on risk perception”. [10] Psychometric paradigm looks at how people react emotionally to a risky situation that “affects judgments of the riskiness of physical, environmental and material risk”. [11] When public officials overreact to a new/unknown danger it is likely because they overestimate its true danger or for reassurance for the public.

“If I Look at the Mass I will Never Act” - This article discusses how most people are caring individuals and they are willing to help those in need. The problem is when those in need are part of a mass group of people. The question that Slovic asks is why do people ignore genocide? He uses psychological research to show how mass murders do not connect in people's minds as being bad as they are. He discusses the lessons that is learned from past genocide. He talks about how we said “’Never again’ after liberation of Nazi death camps” [12] but we have continued to have instances of genocide all over the world. America has reacted poorly to genocide. There are no ramifications to political figures if they choose to stay out of the conflict. He also looks at how the media does not do a great job of reporting the news. They are focused on other issues that are emphasizing the bigger problems. When discussing his psychological research he says how all other factors do not matter without “affect”. Affect is what tells us if something is right or wrong. “If activated feelings are pleasant, they motivate actions to reproduce the feelings. If the feelings are unpleasant, they motivate actions and thoughts anticipated to avoid the feelings” [13] The experience of affect is what guides peoples “judgments, decisions and actions” [14] Slovic also discusses “Attention” as being an important factor. It is necessary for the feelings. It is good for people to see the vast numbers of those murdered but it does not have the same effect as images. Slovic says, “We quickly grow numb to the facts and the math” [15] He uses statistics to show the relationship between the numbers of people presented and our level of contributions to help them. When it was one victim it was a full ten on the scale. For eight victims the contribution dropped down to a five. What seemed to work was when the media would cover individual stories of victims. People became more willing to the help/donate in these instances. Several changes need to be made to combat this perception of mass murder. International law needs to be changed to accommodate this problem of numbness of numbers. The approach of reporting genocide also needs to change because our feelings alone do not give enough drive to stop genocide.

"Facts and Fears: Societal Perception of Risk" - There is statistical data for many hazards that people can perceive such as smoking, car wrecks, etc. But without interpretation of the statistics they are just numbers and they have to be given relevance in their respective context. Slovic looks at the psychology of risk assessment when managing hazards. He says that experts as general publics are needed in the assessment process and “that understanding public perceptions is crucial to effective decision making”. [16] Through his study he looked at how people view as a perceived risk and what determines risk perception. By the end of his research he concluded that “perceived risk is quantifiable and predictable”. [17] Not only is there a difference in perception between experts and public but also the people within the public differ as well. He found that when there is a higher perceived risk it causes higher desired reduction of that risk.

Related Research Articles

Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon or creeping determinism, is the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they were.

Sympathy is the perception of, understanding of, and reaction to the distress or need of another life form.

The cultural theory of risk, often referred to simply as Cultural Theory, consists of a conceptual framework and an associated body of empirical studies that seek to explain societal conflict over risk. Whereas other theories of risk perception stress economic and cognitive influences, Cultural Theory asserts that structures of social organization endow individuals with perceptions that reinforce those structures in competition against alternative ones. This theory was first elaborated in the book Natural Symbols, written by anthropologist Mary Douglas in 1970. Douglas later worked closely with the political scientist Aaron Wildavsky, to clarify the theory. Cultural Theory has given rise to a diverse set of research programs that span multiple social science disciplines and that have in recent years been used to analyze policymaking conflicts generally.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Risk perception</span>

Risk perception is the subjective judgement that people make about the characteristics and severity of a risk. Risk perceptions often differ from statistical assessments of risk since they are affected by a wide range of affective, cognitive, contextual, and individual factors. Several theories have been proposed to explain why different people make different estimates of the dangerousness of risks. Three major families of theory have been developed: psychology approaches, anthropology/sociology approaches and interdisciplinary approaches.

The affect heuristic is a heuristic, a mental shortcut that allows people to make decisions and solve problems quickly and efficiently, in which current emotion—fear, pleasure, surprise, etc.—influences decisions. In other words, it is a type of heuristic in which emotional response, or "affect" in psychological terms, plays a lead role. It is a subconscious process that shortens the decision-making process and allows people to function without having to complete an extensive search for information. It is shorter in duration than a mood, occurring rapidly and involuntarily in response to a stimulus. Reading the words "lung cancer" usually generates an affect of dread, while reading the words "mother's love" usually generates a feeling of affection and comfort. The affect heuristic is typically used while judging the risks and benefits of something, depending on the positive or negative feelings that people associate with a stimulus. It is the equivalent of "going with your gut". If their feelings towards an activity are positive, then people are more likely to judge the risks as low and the benefits high. On the other hand, if their feelings towards an activity are negative, they are more likely to perceive the risks as high and benefits low.

The cultural cognition of risk, sometimes called simply cultural cognition, is the hypothesized tendency to perceive risks and related facts in relation to personal values. Research examining this phenomenon draws on a variety of social science disciplines including psychology, anthropology, political science, sociology, and communications. The stated objectives of this research are both to understand how values shape political conflict over facts and to promote effective deliberative strategies for resolving such conflicts consistent with sound empirical data.

Optimism bias or optimistic bias is a cognitive bias that causes someone to believe that they themselves are less likely to experience a negative event. It is also known as unrealistic optimism or comparative optimism.

Social perception is the study of how people form impressions of and make inferences about other people as sovereign personalities. Social perception refers to identifying and utilizing social cues to make judgments about social roles, rules, relationships, context, or the characteristics of others. This domain also includes social knowledge, which refers to one's knowledge of social roles, norms, and schemas surrounding social situations and interactions. People learn about others' feelings and emotions by picking up information they gather from physical appearance, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, hand gestures, and body position or movement are a few examples of ways people communicate without words. A real-world example of social perception is understanding that others disagree with what one said when one sees them roll their eyes. There are four main components of social perception: observation, attribution, integration, and confirmation.

Greenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behavior of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. For example, if a firm makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity.

The identifiable victim effect is the tendency of individuals to offer greater aid when a specific, identifiable person ("victim") is observed under hardship, as compared to a large, vaguely defined group with the same need.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Risk</span> Possibility of something bad happening

In simple terms, risk is the possibility of something bad happening. Risk involves uncertainty about the effects/implications of an activity with respect to something that humans value, often focusing on negative, undesirable consequences. Many different definitions have been proposed. One international standard definition of risk is the "effect of uncertainty on objectives".

Heuristics is the process by which humans use mental shortcuts to arrive at decisions. Heuristics are simple strategies that humans, animals, organizations, and even machines use to quickly form judgments, make decisions, and find solutions to complex problems. Often this involves focusing on the most relevant aspects of a problem or situation to formulate a solution. While heuristic processes are used to find the answers and solutions that are most likely to work or be correct, they are not always right or the most accurate. Judgments and decisions based on heuristics are simply good enough to satisfy a pressing need in situations of uncertainty, where information is incomplete. In that sense they can differ from answers given by logic and probability.

Psychic numbing is a tendency for individuals or societies to withdraw attention from past experiences that were traumatic, or from future threats that are perceived to have massive consequences but low probability. Psychic numbing can be a response to threats as diverse as financial and economic collapse, the risk of nuclear weapon detonations, pandemics, and global warming. It is also important to consider the neuroscience behind the phenomenon, which gives validation to the observable human behavior. The term has evolved to include both societies as well as individuals, so psychic numbing can be viewed from either a collectivist or an individualist standpoint. Individualist psychic numbing is found in rape survivors and people who have post-traumatic stress disorder.

Scope neglect or scope insensitivity is a cognitive bias that occurs when the valuation of a problem is not valued with a multiplicative relationship to its size. Scope neglect is a specific form of extension neglect.

Hierarchy of death is a phrase used by journalists, social scientists, and academics to describe disproportionate amounts of media attention paid to various incidents of death around the world.

Risk aversion is a preference for a sure outcome over a gamble with higher or equal expected value. Conversely, rejection of a sure thing in favor of a gamble of lower or equal expected value is known as risk-seeking behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baruch Fischhoff</span> American academic (born 1946)

Baruch Fischhoff is an American academic who is the Howard Heinz University Professor in the Institute for Strategy and Technology and the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. He is an elected member of the (US) National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine. His research focuses on judgment and decision making, including risk perception and risk Analysis. He has numerous academic books and articles. Fischhoff completed his graduate education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the supervision of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

Debiasing is the reduction of bias, particularly with respect to judgment and decision making. Biased judgment and decision making is that which systematically deviates from the prescriptions of objective standards such as facts, logic, and rational behavior or prescriptive norms. Biased judgment and decision making exists in consequential domains such as medicine, law, policy, and business, as well as in everyday life. Investors, for example, tend to hold onto falling stocks too long and sell rising stocks too quickly. Employers exhibit considerable discrimination in hiring and employment practices, and some parents continue to believe that vaccinations cause autism despite knowing that this link is based on falsified evidence. At an individual level, people who exhibit less decision bias have more intact social environments, reduced risk of alcohol and drug use, lower childhood delinquency rates, and superior planning and problem solving abilities.

Compassion fade is the tendency to experience a decrease in empathy as the number of people in need of aid increase. As a type of cognitive bias, it has a significant effect on the prosocial behaviour from which helping behaviour generates. The term was developed by psychologist and researcher Paul Slovic.

References

  1. "University of East Anglia Honorary Doctorate Award Ceremony". Archived from the original on July 22, 2012. Retrieved May 20, 2013.
  2. National Academy of Sciences Members and Foreign Associates Elected, News from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, May 3, 2016, retrieved May 14, 2016.
  3. Abstract Plus
  4. Slovic, Paul; Finucane, Melissa L.; Peters, Ellen; MacGregor, Donald G. (2004). "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality". Risk Analysis. 24 (2): 311–322. Bibcode:2004RiskA..24..311S. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x. PMID   15078302.
  5. Slovik, Paul (April 2007). ""If I look at the mass I will never act": Psychic numbing and genocide" (PDF). Judgment and Decision Making. 2 (2). Society for Judgment and Decision Making: 79–95. doi:10.1017/S1930297500000061.
  6. "Psychic Numbing and Mass Atrocity". SSRN   1809951.
  7. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 12, 2015. Retrieved April 6, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  8. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/white_papers/slovic_wp.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  9. Slovic, Paul (2007). "If I look at the mass I will never act:\ Psychic numbing and genocide". Judgment and Decision Making. 2 (2): 79–95. doi:10.1017/S1930297500000061. hdl: 1794/18947 .
  10. Slovic, P. Weber, E (2002) “Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events”, pp. 1-21. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/white_papers/slovic_wp.pdf
  11. Slovic, P. Weber, E (2002) “Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events”, pp. 1-21. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/white_papers/slovic_wp.pdf
  12. Slovic, P. (2007), “If I Look at Mass I Will Never Act: Psychic Numbing and Genocide”, in Judgment and Decision Making, Volume 2, no. 2, pp. 79-95. http://journal.sjdm.org/7303a/jdm7303a.htm
  13. Slovic, P. (2007), “If I Look at Mass I Will Never Act: Psychic Numbing and Genocide”, in Judgment and Decision Making, Volume 2, no. 2, pp. 79-95. http://journal.sjdm.org/7303a/jdm7303a.htm
  14. Slovic, P. (2007), “If I Look at Mass I Will Never Act: Psychic Numbing and Genocide”, in Judgment and Decision Making, Volume 2, no. 2, pp. 79-95. http://journal.sjdm.org/7303a/jdm7303a.htm
  15. Slovic, P. (2007), “If I Look at Mass I Will Never Act: Psychic Numbing and Genocide”, in Judgment and Decision Making, Volume 2, no. 2, pp. 79-95. http://journal.sjdm.org/7303a/jdm7303a.htm
  16. Slovic, P. Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S (1981),"Facts and Fears: Societal Perception of Risk", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 08, eds. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor, MI : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 497-502. http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=5844
  17. Slovic, P. Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S (1981),"Facts and Fears: Societal Perception of Risk", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 08, eds. Kent B. Monroe, Ann Arbor, MI : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 497-502. http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=5844