Seek expert technical risk estimates — but note where values legitimately differ

Use technical probability estimates to ground your risk perception, while acknowledging that some risk disagreements are value-based, not factual.

Why it works

Slovic’s research distinguished two types of risk disagreement: factual (expert and layperson estimates of probability diverge because of information or processing differences) and value-based (they agree on the probabilities but weight consequences differently). The affect heuristic contributes to the factual gap by making novel, dread-inducing, or unfamiliar risks feel more probable than they are. Consulting expert risk estimates corrects the factual gap; recognizing where the disagreement is about values prevents the expert estimates from being dismissed as irrelevant.

How to do it

1. Seek a technical risk estimate from a domain expert or credible statistical source.
2. Compare it to your own estimate; note the gap and its direction.
3. If the expert is lower and your estimate is driven by dread, update toward the expert.
4. If the disagreement persists after adjusting for probabilities, name the value you hold that the expert estimate doesn’t capture — that is a legitimate disagreement, not a bias.

Evidence

Slovic and colleagues’ psychometric risk research showed systematic divergence between expert and layperson risk ratings, driven largely by dread and novelty rather than probability. This body of work is one of the most extensive in decision research, spanning decades of empirical studies. (observational)

Experts are not always right — they have their own biases, and in novel domains expert consensus may not yet exist. The practice is calibration, not deference.

Sources

• Slovic (1987), Perception of risk, Science

Common mistake

Treating expert risk estimates as decisive even when the disagreement is fundamentally about what outcomes matter — conflating factual and value-based risk disagreement.