Valuations of human lives: normative expectations and psychological mechanisms of (ir)rationality

Dickert, Stephan; Västfjäll, Daniel; Kleber, Janet; Slovic, Paul

doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0137-4

Cited by 32 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At a theoretical level, these results suggest that important descriptive decision-making accounts such as prospect theory may not always adequately describe how people value human lives [4], [5]. We propose that, for life-saving decisions, both the gain (Studies 1–3) and loss domain (Study 4) of the value function may not only be characterized by a decreased sensitivity as magnitude increases (the psychophysical function in Figure 1), but may sometimes even show a decline in value (Figure 5).…”

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Compassion Fade: Affect and Charity Are Greatest for a Single Child in Need

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Charitable giving in 2013 exceeded $300 billion, but why do we respond to some life-saving causes while ignoring others? In our first two studies, we demonstrated that valuation of lives is associated with affective feelings (self-reported and psychophysiological) and that a decline in compassion may begin with the second endangered life. In Study 3, this fading of compassion was reversed by describing multiple lives in a more unitary fashion. Study 4 extended our findings to loss-frame scenarios. Our capacity to feel sympathy for people in need appears limited, and this form of compassion fatigue can lead to apathy and inaction, consistent with what is seen repeatedly in response to many large-scale human and environmental catastrophes.

show abstract

Section: General Discussion and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Compassion Fade: Affect and Charity Are Greatest for a Single Child in Need

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies of people's moral intuitions about these cases suggest that people feel morally obligated to help others in dire need (and/or disparage others who do not help) when the victim's needs are salient to the agent and the agent can help effectively (Nagel & Waldmann, 2013), and when others are in-group members (Baron & Miller, 2001). However, people feel less morally obligated to help (and judge not helping as less wrong) when they focus on the number or proportion of individuals they cannot help rather than focus on the individuals that they can help, a phenomenon dubbed "futility thinking" (Bartels & Burnett, 2010;Unger, 1996) or "pseudoinefficacy" (Dickert et al, 2012). Interestingly, strict utilitarians may be less susceptible to futility thinking than people with more flexible moral systems.…”

Section: Moral Obligation To Helpmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Judgment and Decision Making

Bartels

Bauman

Cushman

et al. 2015

The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Axiom of Monotonicity is also assumed to hold for the value of human lives: Saving more lives is better than saving less lives (e.g., Shenhav & Green, 2010;Slovic, 2007;Slovic, Zionts, Woods, Goodman, & Jinks, 2013). Slovic (2007) and others (e.g., Dickert, Västfjäll, Kleber, & Slovic, 2012;Tverskey & Kahneman, 1992;Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen 2001) accept the Axiom of Monotonicity with regards to saving a human life. Slovic (2007), for example, proposed that the value of saving a human life is a monotonically increasing logarithmic function of the number of lives saved (e.g., Dickert et al, 2012;Stevens, 1975).…”

Section: The Psychological Value Of Human Livesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Slovic (2007) and others (e.g., Dickert, Västfjäll, Kleber, & Slovic, 2012;Tverskey & Kahneman, 1992;Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, & Cohen 2001) accept the Axiom of Monotonicity with regards to saving a human life. Slovic (2007), for example, proposed that the value of saving a human life is a monotonically increasing logarithmic function of the number of lives saved (e.g., Dickert et al, 2012;Stevens, 1975). The biggest influence of the number of lives saved on behavior occurs when a small number of lives are saved.…”

Section: The Psychological Value Of Human Livesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological Value Theory: The Psychological Value of Human Lives and Economic Goods

Cohen¹,

Cromley²,

Freda³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here, we proposed Subjective Values Theory, a theory of the perception of value, andhow that perception drives preferential choice. Utility Theory, Prospect Theory, and traditional implementations of sequential sampling theory derive value from observers’ preferential choices. Subjective Values Theory goes beyond these theories by (a) precisely defining and measuring value independent of preferential choice, and (b) using these independent measurements of value to a priori predict preferential choice. We instantiate the decision mechanism proposed by Subjective Values Theory in a new Robust Random Walk (RRW) procedure. We evaluate the validity of Subjective Values Theory and the RRW in six experiments that measure the value of human lives and predict participants’ RTs and preferential choices in complex social decisions. In these experiments, we demonstrate that the process of perceiving Psychological Value is the same for objects and human lives, social status influences the perceived Psychological Value of a human life, and quantity has little or no influence on the perceived Psychological Value of human lives or objects. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to decision theory, behavioral economics, and the psychology of morality.

show abstract

Valuations of human lives: normative expectations and psychological mechanisms of (ir)rationality

Cited by 32 publications

References 51 publications

Compassion Fade: Affect and Charity Are Greatest for a Single Child in Need

Compassion Fade: Affect and Charity Are Greatest for a Single Child in Need

Moral Judgment and Decision Making

Psychological Value Theory: The Psychological Value of Human Lives and Economic Goods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About