According to an American study, we tend to perceive the risks of a potential threat with less apprehension and fear when we obtain more information on its probabilities. This would be a cognitive bias: the “improbability bias”.
- A cognitive bias is a reflex of falsely logical thinking, usually unconscious and systematic.
- Rooted deep in our human brains, cognitive biases twist reality by analyzing it with irrational or paradoxical reasoning.
- The study of cognitive biases is the subject of numerous works in psychology and in the cognitive sciences.
A new study from the University of California (UC) San Diego sheds light on how we perceive risk, finding that more detailed knowledge of the probabilities of a potential hazard makes the risks less important to us.
The results, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychologyare based on findings that have been replicated in more than a dozen different experiments with more than 1,500 participants living in the United States.
This cognitive bias makes our risk estimate lower
So, for example, when a group of volunteers were told that 27% of the population carries at least one copy of a gene that can cause Alzheimer’s disease, they were more fearful of having that gene than those who were given additional details (25% have one copy of the gene and 2% have two copies of the gene). Although the total figure is the same, 27%, the risk seemed to them to be less.
“There is something about learning these individual probabilities that changes the way you think about risk and causes you to lower your estimate”said Uma R. Karmarkar, co-author of the study, in a communicated. This cognitive bias, the assistant professor at UC San Diego has named “improbability bias” (“unlikelihood bias”).
“Giving all these independent reasons with their probabilities may seem to improve recognition of the importance of an event, but may actually decrease the perception of overall risk”, she continues. The teacher points out that “It also means that providing specific information about the odds can help alleviate the fear of negative outcomes.”
A study that could inspire decision-makers to refine their communication
Although the study focused on health risks, the authors also tested this theory using potential positive outcomes, such as winning the lottery. Along with the overall probability of hitting the jackpot, some topics received additional, more specific information. They then perceived themselves as less likely to win. Also for positive scenarios, the “improbability bias” is therefore always valid.
Uma Karmakar remarks that her study “can help institutions and policy makers refine their messages to ensure their communications have an impact”keeping in mind “the behaviors that are supposed to elicit” the information provided.
