Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

PL EN


2010 | 41 | 2 | 46-51

Article title

The relative input of payoffs and probabilities into risk judgment

Content

Title variants

Languages of publication

EN

Abstracts

EN
The study was designed to investigate the relative input of payoffs and probabilities into risk judgment on the basis of the analysis of information search pattern. The modified version of MouselabWeb software (http://www.mouselabweb.org) was used as an investigative tool. The amount, the kind and the order of information accessed by subjects to evaluate risk was collected from ordinary respondents and respondents trained in mathematics and statistics. In the latter group were 75 students and young researchers working at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The ordinary subjects were 67 Polish students of social sciences. As expected, the NASA group considered more information than ordinary students and searched for more information about probabilities. However, the ratio of information about payoffs to probabilities was close to 1 in both groups. Moreover, average risk rates were similar in both groups. It was also observed that risk rates were positively related with the amount of information about probabilities considered by subjects.

Year

Volume

41

Issue

2

Pages

46-51

Physical description

Contributors

  • Warsaw School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw

References

  • Brachinger, H. W., Weber, M. (1997). Risk as a primitive: A survey of measures of perceived risk.OR Spektrum, 19, 235-250.
  • Brandstatter, E., Giegerenzer, G., Hertwig, R. (2006). The Priority Heuristic: making choices without trade-offs.Psychological Review, 113(2), 409-432.
  • Brigham, T. A. (1979). Some effect of choice on academic performance. In L. C. Perlmuter, R. A. Monty (Eds.)Choice and Perceived Control.Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Cohen, J., Hansel, M. (1959). Preferences for Different Combinations of Chance and Skill in Gambling.Namrc, 183, 841-843.
  • Coombs, C. H., Donnell, M. L., Kirk, D. B. (1978). An experimental study of risk preferences in lotteries.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(3), 497-512.
  • Coombs C. H., Lehner E. P. (1981). Evaluation of two alternative models of a theory of risk: I. Are moment of distributions useful in assessing risk?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7(5), 1110 - 1123.
  • Coombs C. H., Lehner E. P. (1984). Conjoint design analysis of the bilinear model: an application to judgments of risk.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28(1), 1-42.
  • Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making.Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-417.
  • Gonzales, R., Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of probability weighting function.Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129-166.
  • Heath, C., Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty.Journal of Risk and Uncertain, 4, 5-28.
  • Howell, W. (1971). Uncertainty from Internal and External Sources: A Clear Case of Overconfidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89 (2)240-243.
  • Huber, O., Wider, R., Huber, O. W. (1997). Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks.Acta Psychologica, 95, 15-29.
  • Johnson, E. J., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Willemsen, M. C. (2008). Process models deserve process data: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006),Psychological Review, 115, 263-272.
  • Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness.Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.
  • Keller, L. R., Sarin, R. K., Weber, M. (1986). Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 38, 114-130.
  • Kuhn, K. M., Budscu, D. V. (1996). The relative importance of probabilities, outcomes, and vagueness in hazard risk decisions.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 301-317.
  • Kuhn, K. M., Budescu, D. V., Hershey, J. R., Kramer, K. M., Rantilla, A. K. (1999). Attribute tradeoffs in low probability / high consequence risks: The joint effects of dimension preference and vagueness.Risk, Decision, and Policy, 4, 31-46.
  • Luce, R. D., Weber, E. U. (1986). An axiomatic theory of conjoint, expected risk.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30 (2), 188-205.
  • March, J., Shapira Z. (1987). Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking.Management Science, 33 (11), 1404-1418.
  • Payne, J. W. (1975). Relation of perceived risk to preferences among gambles.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104(1), 86-94.
  • Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366-387.
  • Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.Psychological Monographs, 80 (1).
  • Shapira, Z. (1994).Risk Taking: A managerial perspective.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Slovic, P. (1967). The relative influence of probabilities and payoffs upon perceived risk of a gamble.Psychometric Science, 9(4), 223-224.
  • Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S. (1968b). Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 78(3, Pt. 2).
  • Sokolowska, J., Swiatnicki, K. (2000). Dimensional model of risk perception. In E. Holzl (Eds.)Fairness & Cooperation.XXV Annual Colloquium on Research in Economic Psychology, Baden/Vienna/ Austria.
  • Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
  • Tversky A., Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.Psychological Review, 91, 293-315.
  • Tversky A., Koehler, D. K. (1994). Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability.Psychological Review, 101, 547-567.
  • Wagenaar, W. A. (1972). Generation of random sequences by human subjects: a critical survey of literature.Psychological Bulletin, 77, 65-72.
  • Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971/72). Perceiving causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, B. Weiner. (Eds.).Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior.New York: General Learning Press.
  • Willemsen, M. C., Johnson, E. J. (2006). MouselabWEB: Monitoring information acquisition processes on the Web. Retrieved August 14, 2008, fromhttp://www.mouselabweb.org/

Document Type

Publication order reference

Identifiers

YADDA identifier

bwmeta1.element.desklight-e8992ffa-81f4-4dfa-a19f-a87090b13829
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.