Sociology’s Contribution to the Study of Value of Life in Risk Perspective: the Case of “Psychophysical Numbing” Effect

1. Sociology’s Contribution to the Study of Value of Life in Risk Perspective: the Case of “Psychophysical Numbing” Effect Kirill Gavrilov Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia September 10th, 2011 Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2011 www.hse.ru

2. Risk and Value of Life • risk involves consequences • significant consequences(life has a value) photo photo photo Higher School of Economics , Moscow, 2011

3. Current Research Approaches • economics (value of a statistical life, willingness to pay methodology) • social psychology(choices among programs, framing effect)

4. “Psychophysical Numbing” Principle(PN-principle) • PN-principle: “inability to appreciate losses of life as they become more catastrophic” (Fetherstonhaugh et al., 1997)

5. PN-priciple Consequences • reduction of deaths from 2,000 to 1,000 may be judged more valuable than the reduction from 99,000 to 98,000 • contradiction with the idea that “a life is a life”

6. PN model (Slovic, 2007)

7. Reference Group • victims as a reference group • entire community under risk as a reference group

8. Key Problem • Explanation of individual differences to the susceptibility to the PN principle. Who are the “non-PN responders”?

9. Existing Explanations • PN-principle is a feature of reasoning: “proportional reasoning”, “general tendency to confuse relative and absolute risk”, cost-benefit analysis. • If life is a “protected value”, then PN-principle doesn’t work. These values are “those that resist trade-offs with other values” (Baron, Spranca, 1997)

10. Example “I could kill that damned old woman and make off with her money… without the faintest conscience-prick… For one life thousands would be saved from corruption and decay. One death, and a hundred lives in exchange –it's simple arithmetic! Besides, what value has the life of that sickly, stupid, ill-natured old woman in the balance of existence!” (F.M.Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, 1866)

11. Proposition 1: Functionalism • The perception of value of other people lives and corresponding perception mechanisms should depend on the society’s social organization

12. Functionalism (M. Douglas) • There are specific types of social context. They generate specific worldviews, shared beliefs and collective representations. These beliefs are functional relative to each type of social context (Douglas, 1973, 1982, 1986).

13. Social Contexts

14. Social Contexts - 2

15. Social Context and Value of Life Individualistic context : • dignifies individuals and places them in the center of the universe (non-PN) • cost-benefit reasoning about the world and other people (PN)

16. Social Contexts - 2

17. Social Context and Value of Life Hierarchical context: • primacy of the social whole(PN) • the community is valued, it must fulfill its functions (PN)

18. Social Context and Value of Life Egalitarian context : • primacy of the social whole (PN) • own lives are less valuable than the value of the community (PN) • lives of outsiders has a decreased value

19. Proposition 1: Effects • all types of social contexts have specific reasons for supporting the PN-principle • current explanations are relevant to the individualistic context • the social wholemay have a value

20. Proposition 2: Perception of Communities • To explain some aspects of the PN-principle by assuming that people perceive the social whole as something valuable. • The reference group per se could be of some value

21. Key Question • Which characteristics of the community (not of individuals) are responsible for perceived value of the community?

22. Main Idea • Folk Sociology: groups differ in their perceived unity or coherence(“entitativity”) (Hamilton and Sherman, 1996; Lickel et al., 2000) • Some groups or communities may be perceived as more “entitative”, natural, coherent and solid entities. That is why such kinds of groups per se can be of some value.

23. Hypothesis – 1 • The loss of the majority of some coherent (high entitativity) community should be perceived as more catastrophic than the loss of members of a less coherent community.

24. Hypothesis – 2 • There is a difference between our willingness to help in case when a small part of a community is under risk and a case when a majority of a community is under risk. This difference will be greater if these communities are perceived as coherent and natural entities.

25. Hypothesis – 3 • The more real (high entitative) is the reference group, the greater is the probability that judgments would me made according to the PN-principle.

26. Possible Properties • interaction among community members (Lickel et al., 2000); • cultural continuity, i.e. continuity of norms and traditions (Sani et al., 2007); • the existence of some underlying reality (Haslam et al., 2000); • common goals among community members and common outcomes (Lickel et al., 2000; Kashima et al., 2004); • the existence of sharp boundaries (Haslam et al., 2000); • duration of the community existence, stability(Lickel et al., 2000; Haslam et al., 2000; Sani et al., 2007).

27. Conclusion • Proposition 1:Social context may influence on the susceptibility to the PN-principle. • Proposition 2: Community may be perceived as something valuable and that affects judgments

28. Kirill Gavrilov, gavrilov@socio.msk.ru