Managing decision-making with certainty of threat

Abstract

International audienceSeveral factors, such as emotion and uncertainty of the outcome, influence decision-making. We assessed decision-making during a risky event (natural hazard, focusing here on two types of volcanic threats) by manipulating the certainty of lethal threat in an information campaign. We hypothesized that the reduction of uncertainty of lethal threat in an information campaign would improve behavior through more suitable choices by reducing the use of emotional choices. In the scenario that occurred in a familiar place, participants who received information with uncertainty of lethal threat presented more emotional and comfortable choices, such as staying at home, rather than detached ones, such as leaving the area. These were either appropriate (for volcanic ash cloud) or inappropriate (for pyroclastic flow). The certainty hypothesis was partially validated, as certainty influenced the quality of choice in the scenarios that took place at home. Furthermore, participants in the volcanic disaster context presented less suitable decisions compared to those in the neutral context, which was discussed in terms of the presence of emotions, such as fear of volcanic eruption. Our results highlight the importance of controlling the comforting emotional aspect of the home environment in any information communication

Reducing uncertainty to promote appropriate decisions when facing hazardous phenomena at an active volcano

“…In comparison, the absence of a moral dilemma involved more rational choices, which implied a better application of the recommendations (quality of choice 5 59.85/100). This result is in line with a recent study (Merlhiot et al, 2017) and other previous works supporting the idea that making a decision when facing a moral dilemma usually implies a preference for moral choices over rational choices (e.g., Bartels, 2008;Greene et al, 2009;Paxton & Greene, 2010). Concerning populations, we also found that the local people made significantly poorer quality choices (36.32/100) than scientists (54.3/100).…”

“…As an alternative solution, it is possible to reduce the uncertainty at an earlier level, considering the uncertainty of the consequences of the threat. Indeed, a recent study exhibited that a reduction of the uncertainty of the consequences of a lethal threat favored less affect heuristics‐driven choices related to staying at home or not (Merlhiot, Mermillod, Le Pennec, & Mondillon, ). Therefore, through information campaigns, we propose reducing the uncertainty of the consequences of a lethal threat, which would reduce the preference for affect heuristics‐driven choices and, in the specific case of difficult decisions, simultaneously improve decision making toward appropriate actions.…”

“…In the case of a high prevalence of reluctance to evacuate due to emotional aspects, authorities should emphasize their alert messages on the certain consequences of the events, such as in the case of upcoming pyroclastic flows. In addition, according to a recent study (Merlhiot et al, 2017), emphasizing the certainty of consequences of the pyroclastic flows would also reduce the proportion of individuals staying at home instead of evacuating.…”