#risk perception

We often hear the risk of death or disability associated with COVID described as being “low” or “high.” Confusingly, different people can respond to the same number with very different qualifiers. Just how risky is COVID compared to other risks in our lives? We dig into that in this article.

...

Statistically, you can expect to run with the bulls 18 times before your cumulative risk of injury exceeds 50%. Beyond that point, the odds begin to stack against you. It takes 77 excursions before you can be 95% confident that you will get injured.

For such a seemingly dangerous sport, those numbers aren’t that bad. The per-infection chance of developing symptomatic Long COVID is 14.6% according to Statistics Canada. With these numbers, you can get infected with SARS-Cov-2 4 times before your risk of Long COVID approaches a 50/50 chance. After 19 infections, your cumulative risk approaches near certainty at 95%.

We all like to think we’re pretty good at spotting danger, but the truth is our brains love to play tricks on us. That’s why “low risk” can still hit hard, and why a 30% chance is way more real than it sounds.

A lot of risk judgments feel intuitive, yet everyday life keeps proving how often intuition misses the odds. People overreact to rare events, underestimate familiar ones, and misread numbers when the outcome feels personal.

Probability and risk assessment psychology studies how people estimate uncertainty, judge danger, and make decisions under incomplete information. It matters because the brain misreads probabilities all the time. Recognizing common biases, comparing clinical and actuarial methods, and using simple risk tools can sharpen everyday decisions and make risk easier to explain in plain language.

Luckier decisions start with better risk estimates

Better luck usually comes from better odds reading, not from blind optimism.

A 20% chance means 20 out of 100 similar cases, not a lucky or unlucky fate. That sounds obvious, but it breaks down fast in real life. The moment the outcome feels personal, the brain starts rewriting the math.

Base rates beat gut feelings

Base rates are the starting odds seen in a larger group. If 8 out of 100 similar cases end badly, that 8% matters before any story about one person enters the picture.

A 1% risk still means 1 in 100 people face the outcome.

Luck is often misread as skill

People often call a good result smart when it was mostly chance. They also call a bad result careless when the risk was there all along.

A short history of risk psychology

Once you see how badly your gut handles odds, everyday choices start looking a lot less simple...

Source | YouTube | TEDx Talks

Kristian graduated from Harvard University before pursuing a PhD and a career in academia. He is now a Professor of Management at The York Management School, University of York where his research focuses on behavioural decision making and judgment, addressing topics such as self-control, pro-social behaviour, risk perception, and consumer finance. Through this…

In its 15th Global Risks Report published on Wednesday, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has said that for the first time in the report's history all of the "top long-term risks by likelihood" are environmental. While in the previous decade economic and financial crises were seen as most dangerous, the report has found that risk perceptions have shifted to extreme weather, environmental disasters, biodiversity loss, natural catastrophes and failure to mitigate climate change.

"Climate change is a very real and serious threat to society," said Alison Martin, a senior member of Zurich Insurance Group, who helped compile the publication, alongside consultancy Marsh & McLennan and a number of renowned universities from across the world.

"Extreme weather events such as heat waves and flooding are becoming more commonplace and severe, leaving communities to deal with often devastating humanitarian and economic costs," she added.

Eleanor Heather, Senior Behavioural Strategist at Ogilvy Change

Dear OBehave readers.

As you may know, we have worked closely with the company Eat Grub for several years now. Together we have applied behavioural science to help promote their insect-based snacks, our aim being to establish insects as a valid and desirable food source (find out more about our work together here).

We are again collaborating with Eat Grubs at this year’s Food Matters Live conference, and you’re all welcome to join us!

This week from Tuesday 21st to Thursday 23rd we’ll be exploring the psychology of choice and how it relates to entomology. Check out Food Matters Live for more information – it’s set to be an amazing few days of all things food (and psych of course!).

So given our upcoming event, I thought I’d share a new paper examining how context and image provision influences risk perceptions and choice intent of insect-based food products.

Baker, Shin & Kim (2016) conducted a series of experiments to better understand how the (i) choice location (ii) imagery and (ii) description used influenced consumers’ risk perceptions of edible insects.

As we’re all aware a myriad of factors influence our food purchases: the relative price; how hungry we are; who we’re with; the effort involved in accessing said food; cultural associations and norms (see e.g. Drake & Chung, 2005; Hollands et al, 2013; Spence, 2015; Delwiche, 2012;Wang, 2013).

And as Baker, Shin & Kim illustrate, a food’s visual appearance can significantly affect a consumer’s likelihood of trying it. Equally, the context in which the food is presented influences how and what information consumers evaluate: the same product description in a restaurant setting may not provoke the same appeal in a store setting. Yet such factors are still under explored in relation to more novel food types, like insects.  

In the study, the authors tested whether (i) ambiguous or transparent imagery and descriptions were more effective at driving purchase intent and (ii) the context of the choice mattered. Specifically, they examined: (i) image of insect vs image of processed insect powder; common insect name vs scientific insect name (ii) retail vs restaurant setting. They looked firstly at the impact on risk perceptions, and secondly how risk perceptions then impacted purchase intent.

The potential ‘risks’ from eating insects are worth considering for a moment. Firstly, given their still relative novelty, there is the risk of the sensory experience, and taste being inferior to an alternative (functional risk). There is also the potential for consumers to perceive a physical risk to their health, given our western association of disease-bearing insects. Alternatively, when considered within a social context, there is the risk of ego-damage if the insect product is not viewed positively within a given social group (social risk), or if it does not marry up to our own self-image (psychological risk).

Unsurprisingly the study found risk perceptions were significantly affected by the image and description used to market the insect products. And, that heightened risk led to lower purchase intent.

However, and rather interestingly only psychological and functional risk were significantly affected in both settings. Moreover, images of actual vs processed insects had a significant and negative impact only when used within the retail setting. In the restaurant setting, only the item description affected risk and purchase intent. In both settings, the more ambiguous the marketing (i.e. processed powder + scientific name), the greater the purchase intent. Arguably because the negative connotations of insects were not so acutely activated.

Although the study was conducted within an artificial environment, it does add valuable insights into how best to market novel foods like insects. If you want to help increase the evidence base, why not venture to Food Matters Live this week and see what influences your choice?

Abstract: