Pandemic Showcases Why Objective, Comprehensive Data Must Guide Risk Decisions

People around the globe have struggled to make sense of the risks from COVID-19, evidenced by sharply different perspectives on everything from the need to wear masks to the wisdom of going to a movie theater. It has been complicated by politics, certainly, but also evolution, according to biologists. People assess risk in both a deliberate, analytical manner and in an emotional, intuitive way—and while this ordinarily serves people well, it gets complicated when emotion and pragmaticism are in conflict.

The response to the pandemic has epitomized the importance of objectivity in risk assessments, with many researchers noting that “optimistic bias” has often clouded individuals’ perception of COVID-19 risks. They recognize the virus’ ability to harm health—and even cause death—but refuse protective measure because they optimistically believe that their personal risk is less than the risk to others. 

Avoiding Risk Missteps

Like people, businesses are prone to misjudging risk. Organizations often unwittingly seek out facts to support decisions they want to make, and bias can bend the perception of the facts they collect. These tendencies can result in shortsighted business decisions, and—in the high-stakes world of physical security—in critical errors in judgment that can be life-threatening. 

The desire for impartial, unbiased examinations of crime risk is a primary reason that Nationwide Children’s Hospital leans heavily on data from CAP Index, according to its Director of Security, Dan Yaross. The rapidly expanding pediatric hospital and research institute has grown to 60 locations and includes a CAP Index report for every one of them. 

Yaross says data drives the train at Nationwide Children’s Hospital—and the more objective the better. “It’s one thing for [security] to recommend something, but data is what makes an impact—and that’s what CAP reports give us,” Yaross explained. “Then it’s not just us saying it’s an area of high-crime risk. It provides objective support for our opinions. It drives everything.”

“Near-miss” bias

“Near-miss” bias is one way that an event can skew perceptions. When escaping a weather emergency unscathed, for example, people often mistake their good fortune “as an indicator of resiliency,” according to Georgetown and George Mason University researchers (“Why Near-Miss Events Can Decrease an Individual’s Protective Response to Hurricanes, Risk Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 3). It’s not that people deliberately update their probability of being a victim in the wake of a near miss, but it changes their frames of reference. “Our research shows how people who have experienced a similar situation but escape damage because of chance will make decisions consistent with a perception that the situation is less risky than those without the past experience.” 

In the absence of objective and comprehensive data, such as those detailed in CAP Index reports, people favor their own prior experience, which gives distortions such as near-miss bias fertile soil in which to grow. It allows the narrative that accompanies facts to grow more important than the facts themselves, and it is why, research shows, that when it comes to crime and disaster preparedness and mitigation, “gut feelings” cannot be allowed to shape decisions.

“The nice thing about a CAP score is that it’s not just crime—it’s giving you the whole socio-economic perspective,” said Jay C. Beighley, CPP, Associate Vice President for Corporate Security at Nationwide Insurance, which utilizes CAP Index to prioritize security at more than 300 locations across the country. Whereas crime data can be misleading, CAP scores provide “a more well-rounded look at an environment and its past, current, and future,” says Beighley.