Premium
How Do People Evaluate Risk Reduction When They Are Told Zero Risk Is Impossible?
Author(s) -
Nakayachi Kazuya
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
risk analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1539-6924
pISSN - 0272-4332
DOI - 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01290.x
Subject(s) - zero (linguistics) , risk management , actuarial science , risk assessment , agency (philosophy) , residual risk , reduction (mathematics) , risk analysis (engineering) , risk perception , psychology , social psychology , business , economics , computer security , finance , computer science , mathematics , sociology , social science , philosophy , linguistics , perception , geometry , management , neuroscience
Two studies examined how people evaluate risk reduction when they believe zero risk to be impossible. Measures collected were willingness to pay (WTP) for risk reduction, and degree of trust in the risk management agency. The findings from the combined studies are: (1) participants were more willing to pay a higher amount for the same reduction in risk in the “zero risk possible” than in the “zero risk impossible” condition; and (2) people's trust in the risk management agency did not differ between the “zero risk impossible” and “zero risk possible” conditions. These results suggest that it might be viable for agencies to accurately communicate the unattainability of zero risk without suffering a loss in public faith or trust, and thus that excessive expenditure for risk reduction might be prevented.