Heuristic‐Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment

Abstract

The heuristic-systematic information processing model (HSM) holds that individuals will use one or both of these modes of information processing when attempting to evaluate information in order to arrive at a judgment. Systematic processing is defined by effortful scrutiny and comparison of information, whereas heuristic processing is defined by the use of cues to arrive more easily at a judgment. Antecedents to the two processing modes include information sufficiency, motivation, and self-efficacy. Structural equation modeling is used to examine competing configuration of this model and to evaluate the model as appropriate for predicting risk judgment. The model also is evaluated across three groups that vary with respect to their level of concern. These analyses are executed within a case study involving an epidemiological investigation of a suspected cancer cluster. The analysis confirms the HSM's theoretically proposed structure and shows it to be a useful vehicle for evaluating risk judgment. In the overall analysis, antecedent variables generally function as specified by theory. Systematic processing is predicted by greater motivation. Heuristic processing is predicted by information sufficiency. Self-efficacy is a significant predictor of both processing modes. And heuristic processing is shown to be associated with judgment of less risk. However, when the analysis is contrasted across three groups (those concerned about cancer, not concerned and uncertain) it is shown that the model is significantly more robust for the uncertain group. This finding may have implications for the use of the HSM in risk research specifically, and in field research generally.

The antecedent role of personal environmental values in the relationships among trust in companies, information processing and risk perception

“…We also corroborate Trumbo's results (Trumbo 1999(Trumbo , 2002McComas 2003, 2008) and the assumption that attitudes are formed and modified as people gain information about attitude object, with the positive and relevant direct influence (higher weight in the model) of systematic processing on risk perception. This relationship may demonstrate that people who process information about industrial risk rationally have a higher perception of risk.…”

“…In this vein, and in light of previous findings (Trumbo 1999(Trumbo , 2002, we posit that apathetic individuals will adopt a heuristic processing mode. The gap between an individual's actual and desired confidence in risk judgement is small, so individual tend to avoid asking and looking for too much information on possible risks (Gamero et al 2011).…”

“…Probably the most fruitful area of research in risk perception is that which has yielded insight into how people respond to a single, real hazard (Huang et al 2013;Signorino 2012). In this context, risk literature traditionally has defended that people who think systematically will reduce unnecessary overreactions to risk (Trumbo, 1999). However, some contributions provide empirical evidence that heuristic processing, based on simple decision rules such as agreement with expert opinion (for example, a company's opinion), seems to be associated with judgement of lower risk; and systematic processing, based on the analysis of all useful information from sources other than the company itself (such as civic group associations), with judgement of greater risk (Trumbo 2002, Trumbo and McComas 2003.…”

The Job Demands and Resources Decision Making (JD-R-DM) Model

“…The two decision-making styles are believed to be "nontraditional" intuitive, which is heuristic, resourceful, and produces many decisions, and "traditional" analytical, which is a systematic and effortful process to select the optimal decision (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002;Milkman, Chugh, & Bazerman, 2009). These styles can be separate, complementary entities that, alone or in combination with one another, influence work performance (Isen, 2001;Trumbo, 1999).…”

“…We split it into either analytical or intuitive decision making, to create a more workable model. Nurses strategically use both analytical and intuitive decision making synergistically or alone depending upon what a situation requires (Trumbo, 1999). Thus, it is becoming an, "ultimate skill" to switch between or activate both decision-making styles, quickly (Hodgkinson & SadlerSmith, 2003).…”