Terrorism, lightning and falling furniture

Abstract

From time to time, opinion pieces appear in the media that point out that the risk of being harmed by terrorism is very low. This much is true, at least from an actuarial perspective. These opinion pieces are often accompanied by lists of other, usually absurd, ways that a person is more likely to die, including being struck by lightning or crushed by falling furniture. When asked, people do state a likelihood of being harmed by terrorism that is much greater than the actuarial odds. But risk perception is complex and to many people the actuarial odds of being killed by terrorism versus being killed by falling furniture do not adequately reflect the differences in the nature of risks from these two things. A discussion about risk perception and terrorism cannot start and end with the conclusion that people simply overestimate the risk. To do so would be to overlook the nuances of risk perception and decision-making under conditions of risk and uncertainty. An understanding of the complex ways in which risk perceptions are shaped is essential for those who would seek to accurately characterise, compare and regulate risks in the terrorism context.

Speaking of terrorist behaviour

“…2 The Inverse S-Shaped Probability Weighting Function when attacks are occurring frequently? The over-weighting of unlikely outcomes is one part of the explanation (Phillips & Pohl, 2020;Sunstein, 2003). Interestingly, 'odds ' and 'probability' and 'likelihood' are not mentioned at all by Gill et al (2020) or the terrorists whose words Gill et al (2020) excerpt in their paper.…”

The Slicing Method: Determining Insensitivity Regions of Probability Weighting Functions

“…For instance, Baillon et al (2020) analyzed relations between insensitivity regions and risk underprevention. Several authors used insensitivity regions in the context of probability uncertainty and applied them to study decisionmaking problems such as the Ellsberg paradox (Abdellaoui et al, 2011;Baillon et al, 2018), the Allais paradox (Neilson, 2003;Neilson & Stowe, 2002), tort and contract laws (Posner, 2004), terrorism (Sunstein, 2003;Phillips and Pohl, 2020).…”