Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation

  title={Confusion of Relative and Absolute Risk in Valuation},
  author={Jonathan Baron},
Subjects were less willing to pay for government medical insurance for diseases when the number of people who could not be cured was higher, holding constant the number who could be cured. In a second experiment, willingness to pay (from a hypothetical government windfall) for risk reduction was unaffected by whether the risk was described in terms of percentage or number of lives saved, even though subjects knew that the risks in question differed in prevalence. These results are consistent… CONTINUE READING
Highly Influential
This paper has highly influenced 12 other papers. REVIEW HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL CITATIONS

From This Paper

Figures, tables, and topics from this paper.
42 Citations
10 References
Similar Papers


Publications citing this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 42 extracted citations


Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 10 references

Comparing expressed and revealed preferences for risk reduction : Different hazards and question frames

  • T. L. McDaniels
  • Risk Analysis
  • 1988
Highly Influential
3 Excerpts

Rating the value of government-funded services: comparison of methods

  • S. 263–291. Kemp
  • Willetts
  • 1995
1 Excerpt

Valuing the prevention of non - fatal road injuries : Contingent valuation vs . standard gambles

  • M. W. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, P. R. Philips
  • Oxford Economic Papers
  • 1995

Risk communication : Absolute versus relative expressions of lowprobability risks

  • P. Unger
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Decision…
  • 1994

Counterfactual thinking and social perception : Thinking about what might have been

  • D. T. Miller, W. Turnbull
  • 1990

Effects of training and set size on children’s judgments of number and length

  • J. Baron, G. Lawson, L. S. Siegel
  • Developmental Psychology,
  • 1975

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…