Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138
Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)
Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)
|
|
|
|
What are the respective contributions of culture and rationality to risk perception? Do disagreements between lay persons and experts (and among members of both groups) originate in conflicting values, differing abilities to comprehend technical information, or both? If conflicting values do play a role, should the law be responsive to popular perceptions of risk even when expert regulators believe that popu-lar beliefs are wrong?
These are the central questions in the debate between Professor Sunstein and us. We take the position that cultural worldviews per-vade popular (not to mention expert) risk assessments and that a genu-ine commitment to democracy forbids simply dismissing such percep-tions as products of “bounded rationality.” Sunstein disagrees.
The critical import of Sunstein’s arguments notwithstanding, we are grateful for his thoughtful reply to our review essay. We now respond to two of Sunstein’s criticisms, one methodological and the other substantive.
[ More ] |
Suggested citation: Dan M. Kahan and Paul Slovic, Cultural Evaluations of Risk: "Values" or "Blunders"?, 119 Harv. L. Rev. F. 166 (2006), http://www.harvardlawreview.org/forum/issues/119/feb06/kahan_slovic.pdf
|
© 2006 The Harvard Law Review Association
webmaster@harvardlawreview.org
|
|
