Evaluating lotteries, risks, and risk-mitigation programs

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 775-795

  Wang, Mei ^a   Fischbeck, Paul S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conjoint analysis; Cumulative prospect theory; Risk attributes; Risk mitigation; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EXPERIMENTS; LEARNING SYSTEMS; RISK ANALYSIS;

CONJOINT ANALYSIS; CUMULATIVE PROSPECT THEORY; GROUP AGREEMENT; RISK ATTRIBUTES; RISK MITIGATION;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 50949125485     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870801967259     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Alderfer, C.P., and H. Bierman, Jr. 1970. Choices with risk: Beyond the mean and variance. Journal of Business 43: 341-53.
2. Bernstein, L.M., G. Chapman, D. Christensen, and A. Elstein. 1997. Models of choice between multioutcome lotteries. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10: 93-115.
3. Bian, W.Q., and L.R. Keller. 1999. Chinese and Americans agree on what is fair, but disagree on what is best in societal decisions affecting health and safety risks. Risk Analysis 19, no. 3: 439-52.
4. Bontempo, R.N., W.P. Bottom, and E.U. Weber. 1997. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach. Risk Analysis 17: 479-88.
5. Boussard, J., and M. Petti. 1967. Representation of farmers' behavior under uncertainty with a focus-loss constraint. Journal of Farm Economics 49: 869-80.
6. Brislin, R. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In Field methods in cross-cultural research and methodology series, ed. W.J. Lonner and J.W. Berry, vol. 8, 137-64. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7. Bruce, J.P. 1999. Disaster loss mitigation as an adaptation to climate variability and change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4, no. 3/4: 295-306.
8. Dibb, P. 2002. The future of international coalitions: How useful? How manageable? Washington Quarterly 25, no. 2: 131-44.
9. Englander, T., K. Farago, P. Slovic, and B. Fischhoff. 1986. A comparative analysis of risk perception in Hungary and the United States. Social Behaviour 1: 55-66.
10. Farquhar, P.H. 1984. Utility assessment methods. Management Science 30: 1293-300.
11. Fennema, H., and M.V. Assen. 1999. Measuring the utility of losses by means of the tradeoff method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, no. 3: 277-95.
12. Fischbeck, P.S., M.L. DeKay, B. Fischhoff, M.G. Morgan, H.K. Florig, C.R. Palmgren, and H.H. Willis. 2000. Evaluating a risk-ranking methodology. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Risk Analysis, December, in Arlington, VA.
13. Fischhoff, B. 1991. Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? American Psychologist 46, no. 8: 835-47.
14. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risk and benefits. Political Science 8: 127-52.
15. Fischhoff, B., N. Welch, and S. Frederick. 1999. Construal processes in preference assessment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19: 139-76.
16. Florig, H.K., M.G. Morgan, K.M. Morgan, K.E. Jenni, B. Fischhoff, P.S. Fischbeck, and M.L. DeKay. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking risks (I): Overview and test-bed development. Risk Analysis 21, no. 5: 913-21.
17. Gürer, I. 1998. International cooperation for solving the avalanche problem in Turkey. Natural Hazards 18, no. 1: 77-85.
18. Hair, J.F. Jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black. 1992. Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: Macmillan.
19. Hershey, J.C., H.C. Kunreuther, and P.J.H. Schoemaker. 1982. Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Science 28: 936-54.
20. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21. Holtgrave, D., and E.U. Weber. 1993. Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. Risk Analysis 13: 553-8.
22. Hsee, C.K., and E.U. Weber. 1999. Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. Journal of Behavior Decision Making 12: 165-79.
23. Hsee, C.K., G.F. Lowenstein, S. Blount, and M.H. Bazerman. 1999. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125: 576-90.
24. Jenni, K. 1997. Attributes for risk evaluation. PhD diss., Department of Engineering and Public Policy, PA, Carnegie Mellon University.
25. Johnson, E.J., and A. Tversky. 1984. Representations and perceptions of risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology (General) 113: 55-70.
26. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47: 263-91.
27. Krewski, D., P. Slovic, S. Bartlett, J. Flynn, and D. Mertz. 1995. Health risk perception in Canada II: Worldviews, attitudes and opinions. Human and Ecological Assessment 1: 231-48.
28. Lai, H., H. Kawshima, J. Shindo, andK. Ohga. 2001. Stages in the history of China's acid rain control strategy in the light of China-Japan relations. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 130, nos. 1-4: 1843-8.
29. Levy, M., and H. Levy. 2002. Prospect theory: Much ado about nothing? Management Science 48, no. 10: 1334-49.
30. Lopes, L.L. 1987. Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 20: 255-95.
31. Lopes, L.L., and G.C. Oden. 1999. The role of aspiration level in risky choice: A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 43: 286-313.
32. Markowitz, H.M. 1952. The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy 60: 151-6.
33. Morgan, M.G., B. Fischhoff, L. Lave, and P. Fischbeck. 1996. A proposal for ranking risk with Federal Agencies. In Comparing environmental risks: Tools for setting government priorities, ed. J.C. Davies, 111-48. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
34. Morgan, M.G., M.L. DeKay, P.S. Fischbeck, K.M. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and H.K. Florig. 2001. A deliberative method for ranking risks (II): Overview and test-bed development. Risk Analysis 21, no. 5: 923-37.
35. Payne, J., J.R. Bettman, and D.A. Schkade. 1999. Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19: 243-70.
36. Ranyard, R. 1995. Reversals of preference between compound and simple risks: The role of editing heuristics. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 11: 159-75.
37. Rohrman, B. 1999. Cross-cultural studies on the perception and evaluation of hazards. In Cross-cultural risk perception, ed. O. Renn and B. Rohrmann, vol. 13, 103-44. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38. Schneider, S. 1992. Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18, no. 5: 1040-57.
39. Slovic, P., B. Fischoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. Facts and fears - understanding risk. In Societal risk assessment, ed. R.C. Schwing and W.A. Albers, 181-218. New York: Plenum.
40. _. 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. In Perilous progress: Technology as hazard, ed. R.W. Kasperson, 91-125. Boulder, CO: Westview.
41. Slovic, P., J. Flynn, C.K. Mertz, C. Mays, and M. Poumadere. 1996. Nuclear power and the public: A comparative study of risk perception in France and United States. Decision Research Report No. 96-6.
42. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297-323.
43. Tversky, A., and R.H. Thaler. 1990. Anomalies: Preference reversal. Journal of Economic Perspectives 4: 201-11.
44. Tversky, A., S. Slovic, and D. Kahneman. 1990. The causes of preference reversal. American Economic Review 80: 204-17.
45. Wang, M., and P.S. Fischbeck. 2004a. Incorporating framing into prospect theory modeling: A mixture-model approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 29, no. 2: 181-97.
46. _. 2004b. Similar in how to frame, but different in what to choose. Marketing Bulletin 15, Article 2.
47. Weber, E.U., and C. Hsee. 1998. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science 44: 1205-16.
48. _. 1999. Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 6, no. 4: 611-17.
49. Wilkening, K.E. 2001. Trans-pacific air pollution: Scientific evidence and political implications. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 130, no. 1: 1825-30.
50. Wright, G.N., L.D. Philips, and A. Wisudha. 1983. Cultural comparison on decision making under uncertainty. In Expiscations in cross cultural psychology, ed. J.B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, and R.C. Annis, 387-402. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger BV.
51. Xie, X. 1995. Risk perception in mainland China. Paper presented at the Asia and Africa Psychology Conference, August 15, in Guangzhou.
52. Xie, X., M. Wang, and L. Xu. 2003. What risks are Chinese people concerned about? Risk Analysis 23: 685-695.
53. Zhang, J. 1994. Environmental hazards in the Chinese public's eyes. Risk Analysis 14: 163-9.