Amanda Gebre
Research Mentor(s): Terri Conley
Mentor Department: Psychology
Authors:
Session: Session 2 (10:00am – 10:50am)
Presentation Type: Poster 35
Abstract
People often misjudge risks due to cognitive biases, particularly the anchoring heuristic, where exposure to one risk influences perceptions of another. This study examines whether presenting car crash statistics—an accepted but statistically dangerous risk—affects how people perceive the severity of foodborne illness, a risk often sensationalized by the media. We recruited college students (ages 18-25) through a university research pool. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: Foodborne Illness Only Condition – Participants viewed statistics about foodborne illness risk. Dual-Risk Condition – Participants viewed statistics about both foodborne illness and car crash risks. After exposure to risk statistics, participants rated the perceived severity of each risk using a 1-6 Likert scale. They also responded to decision-making scenarios, such as whether they would eat expired food or drive in bad weather. Results indicate a significant anchoring effect. Participants in the dual-risk condition perceived foodborne illness as less severe compared to those in the foodborne-illness-only condition. Notably, participants in the dual-risk condition were significantly less likely to report a perceived need for emergency medical care due to foodborne illness (M = 1.53, SD = 0.79) compared to those in the foodborne-illness-only condition (M = 1.91, SD = 0.89, p = .009). These findings suggest that anchoring on an accepted risk (such as car crashes) promotes more balanced risk assessments. Understanding how people evaluate risks based on familiarity and exposure contributes to research on cognitive biases in decision-making. If comparative risk framing reduces irrational fears, public health officials may apply similar strategies to improve risk communication and decision-making.
