Crying wolf: Warning about societal risks can be reputationally risky

Caviola, L., Coleman, M. B., 

Winter, C., & Lewis, J. (2024, June 14).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gtr53

Abstract

Society relies on expert warnings about large-scale risks like pandemics and natural disasters. Across ten studies (N = 5,342), we demonstrate people’s reluctance to warn about unlikely but large-scale risks because they are concerned about being blamed for being wrong. In particular, warners anticipate that if the risk doesn’t occur, they will be perceived as overly alarmist and responsible for wasting societal resources. This phenomenon appears in the context of natural, technological, and financial risks and in US and Chinese samples, local policymakers, AI researchers, and legal experts. The reluctance to warn is aggravated when the warner will be held epistemically responsible, such as when they are the only warner and when the risk is speculative, lacking objective evidence. A remedy is offering anonymous expert warning systems. Our studies emphasize the need for societal risk management policies to consider psychological biases and social incentives.

The research is here.

Here are some thoughts:

The research on the "crying wolf" phenomenon is crucial for clinical psychologists as it delves into the psychological and social dynamics of risk communication and trust. Clinical psychologists often work with individuals and communities to manage anxiety and stress related to perceived threats.

Understanding how repeated false alarms can lead to desensitization and reduced trust in warnings helps psychologists develop better strategies for communicating risks without causing undue alarm or complacency. This knowledge is particularly relevant in therapeutic settings where clients may struggle with anxiety disorders exacerbated by frequent, yet unfounded, warnings about societal risks.

Moreover, the study highlights the reputational risks faced by those who issue warnings, which can be a significant concern for mental health professionals who must balance the need to alert clients to potential dangers with the risk of being perceived as alarmist. This balance is critical in maintaining the therapeutic alliance and ensuring that clients continue to trust and follow professional advice. By understanding the dynamics of the "crying wolf" effect, clinical psychologists can better navigate these challenges, ensuring that their warnings are taken seriously without causing unnecessary panic or skepticism.

Finally, the research underscores the importance of effective communication strategies in mitigating the negative impacts of the "crying wolf" effect. Clinical psychologists can apply these insights to improve their own communication with clients, particularly in crisis situations. By adopting evidence-based approaches to risk communication, psychologists can help clients make informed decisions, reduce anxiety, and foster resilience. This is especially pertinent in the context of public health crises, natural disasters, and other scenarios where accurate and trusted communication can significantly impact mental health outcomes.

Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making

Max H. Bazerman and Ovul Sezer
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Volume 136, September 2016, Pages 95-105

Abstract

In many of the business scandals of the new millennium, the perpetrators were surrounded by people who could have recognized the misbehavior, yet failed to notice it. To explain such inaction, management scholars have been developing the area of behavioral ethics and the more specific topic of bounded ethicality—the systematic and predictable ways in which even good people engage in unethical conduct without their own awareness. In this paper, we review research on both bounded ethicality and bounded awareness, and connect the two areas to highlight the challenges of encouraging managers and leaders to notice and act to stop unethical conduct. We close with directions for future research and suggest that noticing unethical behavior should be considered a critical leadership skill.

Bounded Ethicality

Within the broad topic of behavioral ethics is the much more specific topic of bounded ethicality (Chugh, Banaji, & Bazerman, 2005). Chugh et al. (2005) define bounded ethicality as the psychological processes that lead people to engage in ethically questionable behaviors that are inconsistent with their own preferred ethics. That is, if they were more reflective about their choices, they would make a different decision. This definition runs parallel to the concepts of bounded rationality (March & Simon, 1958) and bounded awareness (Chugh & Bazerman, 2007). In all three cases, a cognitive shortcoming keeps the actor from taking the action that she would choose with greater awareness. Importantly, if people overcame these boundaries, they would make decisions that are more in line with their ethical standards. Note that behavioral ethicists do not ask decision makers to follow particular values or rules, but rather try to help decision makers adhere more closely
to their own personal values with greater reflection.

The paper can be downloaded here.