Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality
Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-04-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
MacGregor, DG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Slovic, P;Finucane, ML;MacGregor, DG
现代认知心理学和神经科学理论表明，人类理解风险有两种基本方式。 “分析系统”使用算法和规范规则，例如概率演算、形式逻辑和风险评估。它相对缓慢、费力并且需要有意识的控制。 “体验系统”是直观的、快速的、大部分是自动的，并且不太容易被意识意识到。体验系统使人类能够在漫长的进化过程中生存下来，并且至今仍然是应对风险的最自然、最常见的方式。它依赖于图像和联想，通过经验与情感和情感（对某事物好或坏的感觉）联系起来。这个系统将风险表现为一种感觉，告诉我们走在这条黑暗的街道上或喝这种气味怪异的水是否安全。正式风险分析的支持者倾向于认为对风险的情感反应是非理性的。目前的观点对这一观点提出了质疑。理性系统和经验系统并行运作，并且似乎都依赖对方的指导。研究表明，分析推理只有在情感和情感的指导下才能发挥作用。理性决策需要两种思维方式的适当整合。这两种系统都有其优点、偏见和局限性。现在我们开始理解情感和理性之间复杂的相互作用，而这对于理性行为至关重要，我们面临的挑战是创造性地思考这对管理风险意味着什么。一方面，如何运用理性来平息一些风险事件引发的强烈情绪？另一方面，我们如何在缺乏经验的情况下注入所需的“情感剂量”，否则可能会让我们过于“冷酷理性”？本文讨论了这些重要问题。
Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.