Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs.

Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity-variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity-estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs-indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.

The 8 billion milestone: Risk perceptions of global population growth among UK and US residents.

In November 2022, the global human population reached 8 billion and is projected to reach 10 billion by 2060. Theories, models, and evidence indicate that global population growth (GPG) increases the likelihood of many adverse outcomes, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, mass migrations, wars, and resource shortages. A small body of research indicates that many individuals are concerned about the effects of GPG, and these concerns are strongly related to the willingness to engage in mitigative and preventative actions. However, scientific understanding of the factors that influence GPG risk perceptions remains limited. To help address this research gap, we conducted a study of the perceived risk of GPG among UK and US residents (N = 1029) shortly after the "8 billion milestone." Our results confirmed that GPG is perceived as a moderate-to-high risk and these perceptions have a strong positive relationship with the willingness to engage in and support risk management actions. Our participants believed that the worst effects of GPG were yet to come but would largely be geographically and socially remote. Despite their willingness to engage in risk management actions, our participants reported low self-efficacy and that governments (cf. individuals and communities) have the greatest capacity to influence GPG. Risk perceptions were strongly predicted by worldviews and were higher among our UK (cf. US) participants. We also found that the perceived benefits of GPG were low and found no evidence to suggest that risk perceptions were affected by exposure to media coverage of the 8 billion milestone.

The role of perceived risk on dishonest decision making during a pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented serious risks to the health and financial wellbeing of millions of people across the world. While many individuals adapted to these challenges through a variety of prosocial and protective behaviors (e.g., social distancing, working from home), many others also engaged in dishonest behaviors (e.g., lying to obtain vaccines or furlough payments). Hence, the COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique context in which to obtain a better understanding of the relationship between risk and dishonesty. Across three preregistered studies, we assessed whether objective risk and perceived risk influenced the decision to behave dishonestly in order to gain access to vaccines and furlough payments during a pandemic. We also assessed the extent to which such dishonesty was deterred by the probability of the dishonesty being detected. We found that heightened health risk perceptions were positively related with lying to obtain a vaccine (Studies 1 and 2), but found no evidence of the same relationship between financial risk perceptions and lying to access furlough payments (Study 2). We also found that the probability of dishonesty being detected had a negative relationship with dishonest behavior (Study 3). In addition, across the three studies, we found that (i) dishonesty was consistently evident in approximately one-third of all of our samples, and (ii) greater dishonesty was associated with older age. We discuss how our findings could be utilized by policy makers to better deter and detect dishonest behaviors during future similar crises.

Predicting the Validity of Expert Judgments in Assessing the Impact of Risk Mitigation Through Failure Prevention and Correction.

Operational risk management of autonomous vehicles in extreme environments is heavily dependent on expert judgments and, in particular, judgments of the likelihood that a failure mitigation action, via correction and prevention, will annul the consequences of a specific fault. However, extant research has not examined the reliability of experts in estimating the probability of failure mitigation. For systems operations in extreme environments, the probability of failure mitigation is taken as a proxy of the probability of a fault not reoccurring. Using a priori expert judgments for an autonomous underwater vehicle mission in the Arctic and a posteriori mission field data, we subsequently developed a generalized linear model that enabled us to investigate this relationship. We found that the probability of failure mitigation alone cannot be used as a proxy for the probability of fault not reoccurring. We conclude that it is also essential to include the effort to implement the failure mitigation when estimating the probability of fault not reoccurring. The effort is the time taken by a person (measured in person-months) to execute the task required to implement the fault correction action. We show that once a modicum of operational data is obtained, it is possible to define a generalized linear logistic model to estimate the probability a fault not reoccurring. We discuss how our findings are important to all autonomous vehicle operations and how similar operations can benefit from revising expert judgments of risk mitigation to take account of the effort required to reduce key risks.

Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies.

The human population is forecast to increase by 3-4 billion people during this century and many scientists have expressed concerns that this could increase the likelihood of certain adverse events (e.g., climate change and resource shortages). Recent research shows that these concerns are mirrored in public risk perceptions and that these perceptions correlate with a willingness to adopt mitigation behaviors (e.g., reduce resource consumption) and preventative actions (e.g., support actions to limit growth). However, little research has assessed the factors that influence risk perceptions of global population growth (GPG). To contribute to this important goal, this article presents three studies that examined how risk perceptions of GPG might be influenced by textual-visual representations (like those in media and Internet articles) of the potential effects of GPG. Study 1 found that a textual narrative that highlighted the potential negative (cf. positive) consequences of GPG led to higher perceived risk and greater willingness to adopt mitigation behaviors, but not to support preventative actions. Notably, the influence of the narratives on perceived risk was largely moderated by the participant's prior knowledge and perceptions of GPG. Contrary to expectations, studies 2 and 3 revealed, respectively, that photographs depicting GPG-related imagery and graphs depicting GPG rates had no significant effect on the perceived risk of GPG or the willingness to embrace mitigation or preventative actions. However, study 3 found that individuals with higher "graph literacy" perceived GPG as a higher risk and were more willing to adopt mitigation behaviors and support preventative actions.

Does Size Matter? A Study of Risk Perceptions of Global Population Growth.

The global human population now exceeds 7 billion and is projected to reach 10 billion around 2060. While population growth has been associated with certain benefits (e.g., economies of scale, technological advancements), theoretical models, probabilistic projections, and empirical evidence also indicate that this growth could increase the likelihood of many adverse events (e.g., climate change, resource shortages) and the impact of these events, as more people are exposed to the outcomes. While concerns about these issues are well-documented in the academic literature, there is little evidence concerning the public's perceptions of the risks associated with global population growth (GPG) and how these perceptions are likely to influence related decisions. To address these issues, we conducted a U.K.-based study that examined respondents' risk perceptions of GPG, their willingness to embrace mitigation/precautionary behaviors, and reasons for variations in these two factors. We found that GPG is perceived as a moderate-to-high risk, with concerns about the increased likelihood of resource shortages, ecological damage, and violent conflict being foremost. Respondents believed that the worst effects of GPG would arrive around 2050 and would be experienced by the world's poorest people. Respondents who perceived greater levels of risk from GPG were generally those who indicated a greater willingness to embrace mitigation behaviors (e.g., reduce resource consumption) and preventative actions (e.g., support political action to limit growth). We discuss how our findings might be utilized to better manage the potential challenges associated with GPG and we suggest several directions for further research.

One Too Many? Understanding the Influence of Risk Factor Quantity on Perceptions of Risk.

Forming a subjective risk judgment in circumstances that feature multiple risk factors is a common, yet complex task. One would expect variations in the number of risk factors in a given situation to have an important influence on risk judgments, yet the exact nature of this influence remains empirically untested. We conducted three studies to address this issue. In Study 1, we found that, when individuals were confronted with a preset number of risk factors (zero, one, two, or three) in the same scenario, their risk judgments were virtually identical for zero, one, and two risk factors, yet markedly higher for three risk factors. By contrast, Study 2 showed that when confronted with variations in the number of risk factors (zero, one, two, and three) for that same scenario, individuals' risk judgments increased/decreased in relatively even increments concurrent with increases/decreases in the number of risk factors. Study 3 identified that pronounced increases in risk judgments, like those observed in Study 1, may occur when the numbers of factors is "high" relative to the potential victim's vulnerability to those factors. Our results show that the number of risk factors in given circumstances can have an important influence on risk judgments and that this influence can differ based on the characteristics of the situation. We discuss how these findings provide a better understanding of subjective risk judgments and highlight the importance of those who seek to communicate risk information being mindful of how data about multiple risk factors could be (mis)interpreted.

Growing pains: How risk perception and risk communication research can help to manage the challenges of global population growth.

In 2011, the global human population reached 7 billion and medium variant projections indicate that it will exceed 9 billion before 2045. Theoretical and empirical perspectives suggest that this growth could lead to an increase in the likelihood of adverse events (e.g., food shortages, climate change, etc.) and/or the severity of adverse events (e.g., famines, natural disasters, etc.). Several scholars have posited that the size to which the global population grows and the extent to which this growth increases the likelihood of adverse outcomes will largely be shaped by individuals' decisions (in households, organizations, governments, etc.). In light of the strong relationship between perceived risk and decision behaviors, it is surprising that there remains a dearth of empirical research that specifically examines the perceived risks of population growth and how these perceptions might influence related decisions. In an attempt to motivate this important strand of research, this article examines the major risks that may be exacerbated by global population growth and draws upon empirical work concerning the perception and communication of risk to identify potential directions for future research. The article also considers how individuals might perceive both the risks and benefits of population growth and be helped to better understand and address the related issues. The answers to these questions could help humanity better manage the emerging consequences of its continuing success in increasing infant survival and adult longevity.

Helping individuals to understand synergistic risks: an assessment of message contents depicting mechanistic and probabilistic concepts.

Accumulating evidence shows that certain hazard combinations interact to present synergistic risks. However, little is known about the most effective ways of helping individuals to understand this complex risk concept. More specifically, there is an absence of empirical research that has assessed the relative efficacy of messages that explain either the causal mechanism and/or the probabilistic components of synergistic risks. In an experiment designed to address this issue, we presented participants with messages concerning the synergistic risk of developing esophageal cancer for individuals who consume both tobacco and alcohol. Relative to a control group, we compared the extent to which messages featuring content detailing the underlying biological mechanism, the probabilistic risk, or both improved understanding of the synergistic risk. Our results showed that messages containing details of both the mechanism and probabilistic information were most effective at enabling individuals to understand that the alcohol-tobacco combination presents a synergistic risk. In addition, large improvements in the accuracy of cancer frequency estimates were observed amongst individuals who received probabilistic information, and the highest relative increase in professed willingness to adopt precautionary behaviors was observed amongst individuals who received the mechanism information only. Importantly, these findings could be utilized in the development of a general model for the communication of synergistic risks. Furthermore, in contrast to previous findings, our study demonstrates that risk messages can be both effective and efficient in helping individuals to acquire a greater understanding of synergistic risks. Acquiring such knowledge could lead to significant improvements in risk-related decisions concerning combined hazards.

Do people believe combined hazards can present synergistic risks?

The risk attributable to some hazard combinations can be greater than the sum of the risk attributable to each constituent hazard. Such "synergistic risks" occur in several domains, can vary in magnitude, and often have harmful, even life-threatening, outcomes. Yet, the extent to which people believe that combined hazards can present synergistic risks is unclear. We present the results of two experimental studies aimed at addressing this issue. In both studies, participants examined synergistic and additive risk scenarios, and judged whether these were possible. The results indicate that the proportion of people who believe that synergistic risks can occur declines linearly as the magnitude of the synergistic risk increases. We also find that people believe, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, that certain hazard combinations are more likely to present additive or weakly synergistic risks than synergistic risks of higher magnitudes. Furthermore, our findings did not vary as a simple function of hazard domain (health vs. social), but varied according to the characteristics of the specific hazards considered (specified vs. unspecified drug combinations). These results suggest that many people's beliefs concerning the risk attributable to combined hazards could lead them to underestimate the threat posed by combinations that present synergistic risks, particularly for hazard combinations that present higher synergistic risk magnitudes. These findings highlight a need to develop risk communications that can effectively increase awareness of synergistic risks.

Clinicians were oblivious to incorrect logging of test dates and the associated risks in an online pathology application: a case study.

BACKGROUND: UK primary care physicians receive their laboratory test results electronically. This study reports a computerised physician order entry (CPOE) system error in the pathology test request date that went unnoticed in family practices. METHOD: We conducted a case study using a causation of risk theoretical framework; comprising interviews with clinicians and the manufacturer to explore the identification of and reaction to the error. The primary outcome was the evolution and recognition of and response to the problem. The secondary outcome was to identify other issues with this system noted by users. RESULTS: The problem was defined as the incorrect logging of test dates ordered through a CPOE system. The system assigned the test request date to the results, hence a blood test taken after a therapeutic intervention (e.g. an increase in cholesterol-lowering therapy) would appear in the computerised medical record as though it had been tested prior to the increase in treatment. This case demonstrates that: the manufacturers failed to understand family physician workflow; regulation of medical software did not prevent the error; and inherent user trust in technology exacerbated this problem. It took three months before users in two practices independently noted the date errors. CONCLUSION: This case illustrates how users take software on trust and suppliers fail to make provision for risks associated with new software. Resulting errors led to inappropriate prescribing, follow-up, costs and risk. The evaluation of such devices should include utilising risk management processes (RMP) to minimise and manage potential risk.

Putting knowledge into practice: Does information on adverse drug interactions influence people's dosing behaviour?

OBJECTIVE: Adverse drug events relating to drug-drug interactions are a common cause of patient harm. Central to avoiding this harm is the patients' understanding that certain drug combinations present a synergistic risk. Two studies tested whether providing individuals with information about a drug combination that presents a synergistic (cf. additive) risk would elicit higher perceived risk and, therefore, would result in greater precaution in terms of dosing behaviour. DESIGN: Both studies employed an experimental design. METHODS: Participants were presented with a scenario describing how two symptoms of an infection could each be treated by a different drug. In Experiment 1, information about the effects of combining the two drugs was varied: (1) no information, (2) combination elicits an additive risk, or (3) combination elicits a synergistic risk. In Experiment 2, the size of the risk (small or large) and the participant's role (patient or doctor) was also varied. RESULTS: In both experiments, perceived risk and negative affect increased in response to information about the increased probability of side effects from the drug-drug interaction. Despite these increases, participants did not adjust their drug dosing behaviour in either experiment: Dosing was similar when these interactions were large or small, or when they were due to synergistic or additive effects. CONCLUSIONS: People may struggle to transfer their knowledge of drug-drug interaction risks into decision-making behaviours. Care should be taken not to assume that holding accurate risk perceptions of a drug's side effect will result in decisions that help avoid adverse drug events. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Adverse effects of drug-drug interactions are a cause of hospital admissions and increase morbidity and mortality. Patients' understanding that certain drug combinations present a synergistic risk is crucial to avoid harm. It is not clear whether synergistic drug interactions increase risk perception and influence dosing decisions. What does this study add? Perceived risk and negative affect increased in response to synergistic risk information. Despite these increases, participants did not adjust their drug dosing behaviour. People struggle to transfer their knowledge of drug-related risks into behavioural decisions.

Towards an understanding of adult judgments of synergistic health benefits.

OBJECTIVE: Numerous scientific studies show that certain combinations of dietary and/or lifestyle factors produce health benefits which are greater than the sum of the benefits associated with each factor alone. To address an existing knowledge gap, we assessed the extent to which individuals understand that certain combinations present these 'synergistic health benefits'. DESIGN: Health benefit judgments were obtained from lay adults for a range of dietary and/or lifestyle combinations that have been found to present synergistic benefits. Association between these judgments and socio-cognitive characteristics such as numeracy, education, and health interest (HI) were examined. METHODS: Three hundred and fifty-two Swiss adults were presented with a description of one of eight synergistically beneficial combinations. Each participant provided a categorical benefit judgment (i.e., subadditive, additive, or synergistic) for the combination and explained the cognitive reasoning underlying their judgment. Participants completed measures of numeracy and HI. RESULTS: The proportion of combinations judged to present a synergistic benefit was modest for 'macro-level' combinations (e.g., diet and exercise), but low for 'micro-level' combinations (e.g., two phytochemicals). Cognitive reasoning data showed that a higher proportion of judgments for micro-level (cf. macro-level) combinations were based on greater subjective epistemic uncertainty. Higher interest in health was associated with a better understanding of synergistic benefits, but numeracy and education level were not. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable scope to improve the extent to which lay adults understand that specific combination of diet and lifestyle behaviours can synergistically benefit their health. Our results enable us to make informed recommendations for public health interventions. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? Combining certain dietary and/or lifestyle factors can result in synergistic health benefits. People could maintain/enhance their health by combining these synergistic combinations. No previous studies have assessed the extent to which people understand that certain factors produce synergistic health benefits. What does this study add? This is the first study to identify that lay awareness of synergistic health benefits could be substantially improved. Neither education level nor numeracy moderate judgments of synergistic benefits, but health interest does. Individuals better understand that broad lifestyle behaviours (cf. specific foods and phytochemicals) are synergistic.

Using risk model judgements to better understand perceptions of synergistic risks.

Numerous scientific studies show that risk factors can interact to synergistically increase the likelihood of certain adverse and life-threatening outcomes. Yet, the extent to which individuals know that specific risk factor combinations present 'synergistic risks' is unclear and little is known about the determinants of such knowledge. This is largely because epistemological progress concerning this topic has been frustrated by a reliance on metrics that have latterly been judged to be of questionable validity. To address this issue, this paper presents two studies that assess an alternative approach (i.e., risk model judgements) which requires respondents to judge the risk for a factor combination relative to, rather than in isolation from, the risk attributable to each constituent factor. Results from both studies indicate that risk model judgements overcome the drawbacks of traditional metrics. More importantly, the results provide epistemological insights into what can determine whether an individual understands that a factor combination presents a synergistic risk; these determinants include experiential and intuitive insights into the effects of combining specific risk factors, domain-specific judgemental experience and exposure to effective learning opportunities. These findings can be utilized in interventions aimed at helping individuals to make better decisions concerning multiple risk factors.

Subjective judgements of synergistic risks: a cognitive reasoning perspective.

Mounting evidence that certain hazard combinations present synergistic risks for adverse outcomes, including violent crime, cancer, and species extinction, highlights the importance of understanding the risk attributable to combined hazards. However, previous studies indicate that individuals often misjudge synergistic risks as additive or sub-additive risks, and there is little research that explores the cognitive reasoning that may lead individuals to make such judgements. This study aims to fill this gap. Participants were asked to review several scenarios that described the risk magnitude presented by a combined hazard. They were required to judge whether each scenario was possible and to explain the reasoning that led to their judgement. The results show that many participants demonstrated an awareness of synergistic risk and that their reasoning was typically characterized by rudimentary knowledge of an underlying causal mechanism for the increased risk (e.g., a chemical reaction between drugs). Conversely, several participants adopted a line of reasoning that precluded the concept of synergistic risk. Many of these participants appeared to employ an additive model of risk, corresponding to the notion of 'adding' one hazard to another. Contrary to much previous research, we found little evidence to indicate that people tend to employ a sub-additive model of risk for combined hazards. Implications for future research and the improvement of risk communications concerning synergistic risks are discussed.