Rejoinder: the perils of Viscusi's analyses of smoking risk perceptions

Slovic, Paul

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(200004/06)13:2<273::aid-bdm338>3.0.co;2-g

Cited by 45 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Risk perception is often estimated by means of probability-based measures to examine empirically information decision models. However, several papers (Weinstein, 1998;Slovic, 2000;Viscusi, 2000) have commented on the implications of estimating risk perception by using different measures. Essentially qualitative and quantitative scales might bring significant differences in the interpretation of risk perception.…”

Section: Datacontrasting

confidence: 99%

When do smokers ‘underestimate’ smoking related mortality risks?

Costa‐Font

Rovira

2005

Applied Economics Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the role of relative mortality risk perceptions in explaining smoking decision making. Some studies have provided evidence that perceptions of risks of smoking are overestimated. However, estimates tend to be sensitive to the estimate it is compared to. Using the same representative survey for Spain, as in other studies, this article finds that though relative mortality risk perceptions explain the decision to smoke and perceived life expectancy loss associated with smoking in Spain was not underestimated, smokers' mortality risk perceptions seem to underestimate the risks.

show abstract

Section: Datacontrasting

confidence: 99%

When do smokers ‘underestimate’ smoking related mortality risks?

Costa‐Font

Rovira

2005

Applied Economics Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All differences are significant at pv.001, except question 3, pw.11. results, Slovic (2000a) suggested that young people do not appreciate the concept that every cigarette they smoke is doing their body harm. Rather, smokers, especially younger smokers, tend to perceive health risks in a cumulative manner, which permits them to rationalize their current smoking behavior as falling below some threshold level of risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions about cigarette smoking and risks among college students

Murphy-Hoefer

Alder

Higbee

2004

CNTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the present study was to describe how college students perceive the risks of cigarette smoking and addiction to nicotine. Data came from a self-administered survey of 1,020 college students enrolled in two 4-year liberal arts colleges in the United States. The survey was conducted in the fall of 2001. Smokers and nonsmokers differed markedly in their perceptions about the health risks associated with short-term exposure to smoking. College students in this sample who smoked did not fully comprehend the risks associated with smoking. Smokers were half as likely as nonsmokers to believe that there are health risks from smoking only on weekends or a couple of days a week. Anti-tobacco messages for young adult smokers need to communicate more effectively the concept that each cigarette they smoke is doing them damage.

show abstract

“…Research by Viscusi (1990), for example (albeit controversial in part because he is a paid consultant to cigarette companies), finds that both smokers and nonsmokers tend to overestimate the health risks of smoking (though see Slovic, 2000, for a contrary perspective, finding underestimates of personal risk even in the face of accurate estimates or overestimates of statistical risks). If Viscusi is correct, then disclosure of the true risks of smoking could end up promoting smoking.…”

Section: Biased Probability Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disclosure: Psychology Changes Everything

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We review literature examining the effects of laws and regulations that require public disclosure of information. These requirements are most sensibly imposed in situations characterized by misaligned incentives and asymmetric information between, for example, a buyer and seller or an advisor and advisee. We review the economic literature relevant to such disclosure, and then discuss how different psychological factors complicate, and in some cases radically change, the economic predictions. For example, limited attention, motivated attention, and biased assessments of probability on the part of information recipients can significantly diminish, or even reverse, the intended effects of disclosure requirements. In many cases disclosure does not much affect the recipients of the information, but does significantly affect the behavior of the providers, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. We review research suggesting that simplified disclosure, standardized disclosure, vivid disclosure, and social comparison information can all be used to enhance the effectiveness of disclosure policies. Acknowledgments:We thank Saurabh Barghava, Cynthia Estlund and Daniel Schwartz for helpful comments, and Jacob Reisberg and Spencer Baugh for superb research assistance.

show abstract

Rejoinder: the perils of Viscusi's analyses of smoking risk perceptions

Cited by 45 publications

References 8 publications

When do smokers ‘underestimate’ smoking related mortality risks?

When do smokers ‘underestimate’ smoking related mortality risks?

Perceptions about cigarette smoking and risks among college students

Disclosure: Psychology Changes Everything

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About