Distributions of observed death tolls govern sensitivity to human fatalities

Abstract

How we react to humanitarian crises, epidemics, and other tragic events involving the loss of human lives depends largely on the extent to which we are moved by the size of their associated death tolls. Many studies have demonstrated that people generally exhibit a diminishing sensitivity to the number of human fatalities and, equivalently, a preference for risky (vs. sure) alternatives in decisions under risk involving human losses. However, the reason for this tendency remains unknown. Here we show that the distributions of event-related death tolls that people observe govern their evaluations of, and risk preferences concerning, human fatalities. In particular, we show that our diminishing sensitivity to human fatalities follows from the fact that these death tolls are approximately power-law distributed. We further show that, by manipulating the distribution of mortality-related events that people observe, we can alter their risk preferences in decisions involving fatalities. Finally, we show that the tendency to be risk-seeking in mortality-related decisions is lower in countries in which high-mortality events are more frequently observed. Our results support a model of magnitude evaluation based on memory sampling and relative judgment. This model departs from the utility-based approaches typically encountered in psychology and economics in that it does not rely on stable, underlying value representations to explain valuation and choice, or on choice behavior to derive value functions. Instead, preferences concerning human fatalities emerge spontaneously from the distributions of sampled events and the relative nature of the evaluation process.decision-making ͉ psychophysics ͉ risk preferences ͉ value of human lives ͉ decision by sampling

Coauthorship Trends in the Field of Management: Facts and Perceptions

“…Overall, the management researchers in our sample are not in favor of inviting more co-authors: In none of the 10 scenarios did willingness to invite additional co-authors significantly exceed the "indifferent" category (i.e., the midpoint of "3" on the 1-5 scale). number of authors on their manuscript with the typical numbers they observe within their field (Olivola & Sagara, 2009;Stewart, Chater, & Brown, 2006). Single-authored, dual-authored, and tri-authored papers are all fairly common within the field of management (within our dataset, they represent, respectively, 42%, 31%, and 18% of the management articles published between 2003 and 2012), so having up to three authors on a manuscript may not seem like a particularly unusual or large number.…”

Patience auctions: the impact of time vs. money bidding on elicited discount rates

“…It may be that individuals regularly construct their preferences from a fairly stable memory cache (Olivola and Sagara 2009;Stewart et al 2006). This consistency is stronger for the simpler (1-parameter) models and weakest for the second-price auction.…”

The Cognitive Psychology of Sensitivity to Human Fatalities

“…However, research has shown that we seem to evaluate the seriousness of deadly events by comparing their potential death tolls with those of other deadly events (Olivola & Sagara, 2009), rather than in terms of their absolute magnitudes. Thus, a deadly event will seem particularly shocking to us if its potential death toll is larger than most of the other death tolls we have observed (e.g., from watching the news).…”