250 people died in the planes of September 11th 2001 and many more did so on the ground. That is a fact which many people know and remember. It has been suggested that 350 deaths that accrued on the 3 months after 9/11 were a result of this attack but that the people responsible are... well us!!
It is suggested that people avoid situations in which many deaths occurred at once ( low probability, high consequence : dread risk), as opposed to when they are spread out over a period of time. This does explain why people are very keen to avoid terrorists attacks even if this means taking higher probability risks instead. A report written by Gigerenzer (2004) put the following hypothesis forward:
1.Americans reduced their Air travel
2.They also chose to drive rather than Fly
3. The traffic fatalities increased.
By looking at data from reliable sources he did find that the hypothesis was true. So what does this tell us?
Well, the experiment seems to assume that there is a causal link between these variations. But if we follow that assumption then we realize yet again that humans are not great at assessing risks! I mean, by avoiding the dread risk of flying which had a low probability of fatality, they took on a more risky activity (driving) which lead to an extra and unnecessary 350 deaths occurring on the 3 months after 9/11. The paper does concluded that this could be avoided by informing people about psychological reactions to catastrophic events and our tendency to over-rate dread risks.
A second paper provided findings which I thought were even more interesting due to the comparison that arose from it.
Alejandro Lopez-Rousseau analyzed pretty much the same data but for a different terrorist attack. I am sure everyone remembers the march 11 Madrid train bombings in 2004.
The hypothesis here was that:
1. Railway travel was reduced.
2. People drove instead.
3. Car related fatalities increased.
Interestingly only the first one occurred!! Car travel, in fact, decreased and so did fatalities!!!!
so what is there to conclude from this?
Spaniards, like Americans, avoided the dread risk. However, instead of taking on a a riskier situation, they reduced travel all together. They avoided the death risk of avoiding the dread risk. Reasons range from the fact that Americans have a higher car culture, or that 9/11 hit America harder than m-11 hit Spain as they have had years of terrorism from ETA.
What is concluded from these papers is that the avoidance of dread risk is universal but whether or not people take on riskier activities instead is dependant on sociopolitical factors.
It is suggested that people avoid situations in which many deaths occurred at once ( low probability, high consequence : dread risk), as opposed to when they are spread out over a period of time. This does explain why people are very keen to avoid terrorists attacks even if this means taking higher probability risks instead. A report written by Gigerenzer (2004) put the following hypothesis forward:
1.Americans reduced their Air travel
2.They also chose to drive rather than Fly
3. The traffic fatalities increased.
By looking at data from reliable sources he did find that the hypothesis was true. So what does this tell us?
Well, the experiment seems to assume that there is a causal link between these variations. But if we follow that assumption then we realize yet again that humans are not great at assessing risks! I mean, by avoiding the dread risk of flying which had a low probability of fatality, they took on a more risky activity (driving) which lead to an extra and unnecessary 350 deaths occurring on the 3 months after 9/11. The paper does concluded that this could be avoided by informing people about psychological reactions to catastrophic events and our tendency to over-rate dread risks.
A second paper provided findings which I thought were even more interesting due to the comparison that arose from it.
Alejandro Lopez-Rousseau analyzed pretty much the same data but for a different terrorist attack. I am sure everyone remembers the march 11 Madrid train bombings in 2004.
The hypothesis here was that:
1. Railway travel was reduced.
2. People drove instead.
3. Car related fatalities increased.
Interestingly only the first one occurred!! Car travel, in fact, decreased and so did fatalities!!!!
so what is there to conclude from this?
Spaniards, like Americans, avoided the dread risk. However, instead of taking on a a riskier situation, they reduced travel all together. They avoided the death risk of avoiding the dread risk. Reasons range from the fact that Americans have a higher car culture, or that 9/11 hit America harder than m-11 hit Spain as they have had years of terrorism from ETA.
What is concluded from these papers is that the avoidance of dread risk is universal but whether or not people take on riskier activities instead is dependant on sociopolitical factors.
