RISK MANAGEMENT: REGULATORY EXPECTATION, RISK PERCEPTION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL INTEGRATION - Risk Management Applications in Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing - page 62

TABLE 3.6 Select List of Heuristics [26-28]
Heuristic
(Rule of Thumb) Description

Anchoring and
adjustment

Estimates are made based on an initial input (conscious or
unconsciously accepted) that our minds “anchor” or grab onto.
We adjust our decision/risk rating up or down from that anchor.

Affect An instinctual feeling about the “goodness or badness” (or risk) of

something.
Can also be called the “ Good-Bad Rule ”

Availability We estimate the likelihood of an event based on how easy it is for

us to think of an example of it occurring. If we can easily think
of an example, our estimate of the likelihood of that example
occurring increases.
Can also be called the “ Example Rule ”

TABLE 3.7 Risk Perception Influence Factors [30]
Factors Causing Higher

Factors Causing Lower

Risk Perception Risk Perception

Uncontrollable Controllable

High visceral dread Low dread factor

Global/catastrophic Localized /non-catastrophic/low impact

Impact on future generations Low impact on future generations

Steadily increasing risk Decreasing risk

Risk not easily mitigated or reduced Risk is easily reduced

Fatal risk effects Repairable harm

Risk is unseen, unknown to those
exposed with delayed effects

Observable, exposed are aware, effects
of risk are immediate

New risk Old risk

Effects of risk not know to science Effects of risk are known

Adapted from Slovic (1987).

a person engages or voluntarily exposes himself or herself to the risk (called
voluntary-involuntary bias). This is not the only factor that impacts the per-
ceived risk/benefit balance and a person's ability to accept a risk. Factors such
as catastrophic potential, the amount of visceral dread it creates within a person,
and the impact on future generations also weigh heavily in our measurements
of risk (see Table 3.7 for a detailed list of risk perception influence factors). In
fact, the discussion and debate about the riskiness of the given input are not just
about the number of people in harm's way. They can be about culture, society,
and ideology [29].
There are additional underlying cognitive explanations when weighing the
risks of known and unknown risks. People place significantly more weight in
sticking with the current state of affairs or risk with certain outcomes and have