When does information about probability count in choices under risk?

Risk Analysis

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1623-1636

  Tyszka, Tadeusz ^a   Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz ^b  

^a KOZMINSKI UNIVERSITY   (Poland)

^b SWPS UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES   (Poland)

Author keywords

Choice under risk; Moral choice; Probability; Risk; Sensitivity to probability

Indexed keywords

PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

CHOICE UNDER RISK; MORAL CHOICE; SENSITIVITY TO PROBABILITY;

INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PROBABILITY; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION; MORALITY; NORMAL HUMAN; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROBABILITY; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK-TAKING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 33845656109     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00847.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Altman, M. (2005). The ethical economy and competitive markets: Reconciling altruistic, moralistic, and ethical behavior with the rational economic agent and competitive markets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 732-757.
2. Bazerman, M. H., Blount White, S., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1995). Perceptions of fairness in interpersonal and individual choice situations. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 4, 39-43.
3. Fiske, A. P., & Tetlock, P. (1997). Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress the domain of relationships. Political Psychology, 18, 255-297.
4. Greene, J. D., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517-523.
5. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105-2108.
6. Hogarth, R. M., & Kunreuther, H. (1995). Decision making under ignorance: Arguing with yourself. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 10, 15-36.
7. Hsee, C. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247-257.
8. Hsee, C. (1998). Will products look more attractive when evaluated jointly or when evaluated separately? Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 175-186.
9. Huber, O. (1997). Beyond gambles and lotteries: Naturalistic risky decisions. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision Making. Cognitive Models and Explanations (pp. 145-162). London: Routledge.
10. Huber, O. (in press). Behavior in risky decisions: Focus on risk defusing. In M. Abdellaoui, R. D. Luce, M. Machina, & B. Munier (Eds.), Theories and Decisions. New York: Springer.
11. Huber, O., Beutter, C., Montoya, J., & Huber, O. W. (2001). Risk-defusing behaviour: Towards an understanding of risky decision making. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 409-426.
12. Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 296-312.
13. Kahnemann, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
15. Lillquist, R. E. (2002). Recasting reasonable doubt: Decision theory and the virtues of variability. UC Davis Law Review, 36, 85-197.
16. Messick, D. M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39, 11-28.
17. Ordonez, L. D., Connolly, T., & Coughlan, R. (2000). Multiple reference points in satisfaction and fairness assessment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 329-344.
18. Shapira, Z. (1994). Risk Taking: A Managerial Perspective. New York: Sage.
19. Slovic, P. (1972). From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculation and some evidence about man's ability to process information. Oregon Research Institute Research Monograph, 12(2), 1-19.
20. Szaniawski, K. (1994). Granice logiki decyzji [The limits of the logic of decision]. In K. Szaniawski (Ed.), O nauce, rozumowaniu i wartósciach [About Science, Reasoning, and Values] (pp. 452-459). Warszawa: PWN.
21. Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Coping with trade-offs: Psychological constraints and political implications. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of Reason (pp. 239-263). New York: Cambridge University Press.