The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence



This article studies decisions made under conditions of fear, when a catastrophic outcome is introduced in a lottery. It reports on experimental results and seeks to compare the predictions of the expected utility (EU) framework with those of a new axiomatic treatment of choice under uncertainty that takes explicit account of emotions such as fear (Chichilnisky 1996, 2000, 2002, 2009). Results provide evidence that fear influences the cognitive process of decision-making by leading some subjects to focus excessively on catastrophic events. Such heterogeneity in subjects’ behavior, while not consistent with EU-based functions, is fully consistent with the new type of utility function implied by the new axioms.


Decision under risk Losses Catastrophic event Fear Probability weighting function 

JEL Classification

C91 D81 


  1. Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science, 46(11), 1497–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. (1971). Essays in the theory of risk bearing. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, D. (1982). Regret in decision-making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleichrodt, H., & Pinto, J. L. (2000). A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science, 46(11), 1485–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calman, K. C., & Royston, G. (1997). Risk language and dialects. British Medical Journal, 315(7113), 939–942.Google Scholar
  6. Chichilnisky, G. (1996). Updating Von Neumann Morgenstern axioms for choice under uncertainty. Proceedings of a Conference on Catastrophic Risks. Toronto: The Fields Institute for Mathematical Sciences.Google Scholar
  7. Chichilnisky, G. (2000). An axiomatic approach to choice under uncertainty with catastrophic risks. Resource and Energy Economics, 22, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chichilnisky, G. (2002). Catastrophical risk. Encyclopedia of Environmetrics (vol. 1, pp. 274–279). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Chichilnisky, G. (2009). The topology of fear. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 45 (11–12) doi: 10.1016/j.jmateco.2009.06.006.
  10. Chilton, S., Jones-Lee, M., Kiraly, F., Metcalf, H., & Pang, W. (2006). Dread risks. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 33(3), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corso, P. S., Hammitt, J. K., & Graham, J. D. (2001). Valuing mortality-risk reduction: Using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delquié, P. (1993). Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Science, 39(11), 1382–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elster, J. (1998). Emotions and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 47–74.Google Scholar
  14. Etchart-Vincent, N. (2004). Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences? An experimental investigation on losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(3), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etchart-Vincent, N. (2009). Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(1), 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fennema, H., & Van Assen, M. (1999). Measuring the utility of losses by means of the tradeoff method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 17, 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gul, F. (1991). A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica, 59(3), 667–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kunreuther, H., Novemsky, N., & Kahneman, D. (2001). Making low probabilities useful. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 23(2), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92, 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1986). Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 53, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reid, A. (2006). On the nature of preference in decisions involving risk: A proportion of emotion mechanism. Ph.D., Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University.Google Scholar
  25. Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sunstein, C. (1997). Bad deaths. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sunstein, C. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2/3), 121–136.Google Scholar
  28. Sunstein, C., & Zeckhauser, R. (2008). Overreaction to fearsome risks. Faculty Research Paper No. RWP08-079, Harvard Kennedy School.Google Scholar
  29. Tversky, A., & Fox, C. (1995). Weighting risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review, 102, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tversky, A., Sattah, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment in choice. Psychological Review, 95(3), 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Viscusi, W.K. (2009). Valuing risks of death from terrorism and natural disasters. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38(3), 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wakker, P., & Deneffe, D. (1996). Eliciting Von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42(8), 1131–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS-GREQAM-IDEPMarseille cedex 2France
  2. 2.Economics DepartmentColumbia UniversityNYUSA

Personalised recommendations