IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i6p1623-1636.html

When Does Information about Probability Count in Choices Under Risk?

Author

Listed:
  • Tadeusz Tyszka
  • Tomasz Zaleskiewicz

Abstract

The question addressed in the present research is whether in naturalistic risky decision environments people are sensitive to information about the probability parameter. In Study 1, we showed that in naturalistic scenarios participants generally revealed little interest in obtaining information about the outcomes and probabilities. Moreover, participants asked fewer questions about probabilities for scenarios containing moral considerations. In Study 2, it was shown that, when supplied with information on probabilities, people could be sensitive to this information. This sensitivity depends on two factors. People were less sensitive to probabilities in scenarios perceived as containing ethical considerations. People were also less sensitive to probabilities when they were faced with a single‐choice situation than when they were faced with a series of lotteries with different probabilities. This can be accounted for in terms of the evaluability principle.

Suggested Citation

  • Tadeusz Tyszka & Tomasz Zaleskiewicz, 2006. "When Does Information about Probability Count in Choices Under Risk?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1623-1636, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:6:p:1623-1636
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00847.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00847.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00847.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hogarth, Robin M & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Decision Making under Ignorance: Arguing with Yourself," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 15-36, January.
    2. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Messick, David M., 1999. "Alternative logics for decision making in social settings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 11-28, May.
    5. Altman, Morris, 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, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 732-757, October.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Julija Michailova & Tadeusz Tyszka & Katarzyna Pfeifer, 2017. "Are People Interested in Probabilities of Natural Disasters?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1005-1017, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elliott, Catherine S. & Hayward, Donald M., 1998. "The expanding definition of framing and its particular impact on economic experimentation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 229-243.
    2. Charles Changchuan Jiang & Liana Fraenkel, 2017. "The Influence of Varying Cost Formats on Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 17-26, January.
    3. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    4. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    6. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    7. Huber, Joel & Viscusi, W. Kip & Bell, Jason, 2008. "Reference dependence in iterative choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 143-152, July.
    8. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    9. Sickar, Michael J. & Highhouse, Scott, 1998. "Looking Closer at the Effects of Framing on Risky Choice: An Item Response Theory Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 75-91, July.
    10. Bottom, William P., 1998. "Negotiator Risk: Sources of Uncertainty and the Impact of Reference Points on Negotiated Agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 89-112, November.
    11. Nagel, Christian & Heidenreich, Sven & Schumann, Jan H., 2024. "Enhancing Adoption of Sustainable Product Innovations: Addressing Reduced Performance with Risk-Reducing Product Modifications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Clemens Puppe & Stephanie Rosenkranz, 2011. "Why Suggest Non‐Binding Retail Prices?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(310), pages 317-329, April.
    13. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    14. Wells, Rachael E. & Iyengar, Sheena S., 2005. "Positive illusions of preference consistency: When remaining eluded by one's preferences yields greater subjective well-being and decision outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 66-87, September.
    15. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight transport," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    16. Malcolm Baker & Xin Pan & Jeffrey Wurgler, 2009. "A Reference Point Theory of Mergers and Acquisitions," NBER Working Papers 15551, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Haijiao Cui & Bin Cao & Aimei Li & Zhaohui Li, 2023. "A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1191-1217, March.
    18. Rosenkranz, Stephanie, 2003. "The Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price," CEPR Discussion Papers 3954, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    19. Shai Davidai & Thomas Gilovich, 2018. "How should we think about Americans’ beliefs about economic mobility?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(3), pages 297-304, May.
    20. France Leclerc & Christopher K. Hsee & Joseph C. Nunes, 2005. "Narrow Focusing: Why the Relative Position of a Good in Its Category Matters More Than It Should," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 194-205, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:6:p:1623-1636. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.