低概率/高后果风险下的属性权衡:维度偏好和模糊性的联合效应

Kristine M. Kuhn, D. Budescu, J. R. Hershey, Karen M. Kramer, Adrian K. Rantilla
{"title":"低概率/高后果风险下的属性权衡:维度偏好和模糊性的联合效应","authors":"Kristine M. Kuhn, D. Budescu, J. R. Hershey, Karen M. Kramer, Adrian K. Rantilla","doi":"10.1080/135753099348085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractA number of studies have shownthat people are typically averse to vagueness inprobabilities. But formanyimportant decisions, peoplerarely have access to precisevalues for either outcomes or probabilities. It has been demonstrated that mostpeople held congruent attitudes towards vagueness for both probabilities andoutcomes, but dimension preference was typically a better determinant of choicethan vagueness attitudes. The present study investigates vagueness effects on therelative weighting ofrisk dimensions for a particularly problematic type of hazard-risks with very small probabilities and severe consequences - using a morereliableand robust measurement procedure. Eighty-seven subjects evaluated hypotheticalhealth risk options whichvaried interms ofthe probability of loss, amountof loss,and the precision with which each dimension was specified. Relevant individualattitudes towardsvagueness and dimensionpreferenceweresignificant predictorsofchoice, and a new indication of an association between dimension salience andvagueness attitude was found: most subjects were more concerned with loss thanprobabilities, and were moreaverse to vagueness in losses as well.1. IntroductionA number of empirical studies (e.g., Ellsberg,","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attribute tradeoffs in low probability/high consequence risks: the joint effects of dimension preference and vagueness\",\"authors\":\"Kristine M. Kuhn, D. Budescu, J. R. Hershey, Karen M. Kramer, Adrian K. Rantilla\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/135753099348085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractA number of studies have shownthat people are typically averse to vagueness inprobabilities. But formanyimportant decisions, peoplerarely have access to precisevalues for either outcomes or probabilities. It has been demonstrated that mostpeople held congruent attitudes towards vagueness for both probabilities andoutcomes, but dimension preference was typically a better determinant of choicethan vagueness attitudes. The present study investigates vagueness effects on therelative weighting ofrisk dimensions for a particularly problematic type of hazard-risks with very small probabilities and severe consequences - using a morereliableand robust measurement procedure. Eighty-seven subjects evaluated hypotheticalhealth risk options whichvaried interms ofthe probability of loss, amountof loss,and the precision with which each dimension was specified. Relevant individualattitudes towardsvagueness and dimensionpreferenceweresignificant predictorsofchoice, and a new indication of an association between dimension salience andvagueness attitude was found: most subjects were more concerned with loss thanprobabilities, and were moreaverse to vagueness in losses as well.1. IntroductionA number of empirical studies (e.g., Ellsberg,\",\"PeriodicalId\":212131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Risk Decision and Policy\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Risk Decision and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/135753099348085\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Decision and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/135753099348085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

许多研究表明,人们通常不喜欢概率的模糊性。但在做出重要决策时,人们几乎无法获得结果或概率的精确值。研究表明,大多数人对模糊性的概率和结果持有一致的态度,但维度偏好通常比模糊性态度更能决定选择。本研究使用一种更可靠、更稳健的测量程序,对一种特别有问题的危险类型(概率很小、后果严重的风险)的风险维度的相对权重进行了模糊性影响的调查。87名受试者评估了假设的健康风险选项,这些选项在损失概率、损失金额和每个维度指定的精度方面有所不同。个体对模糊性和维度偏好的态度是选择的重要预测因子,并且发现了维度显著性和模糊性态度之间存在关联的新迹象:大多数受试者更关心损失而不是概率,并且更厌恶损失中的模糊性。一些实证研究(如Ellsberg,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Attribute tradeoffs in low probability/high consequence risks: the joint effects of dimension preference and vagueness
AbstractA number of studies have shownthat people are typically averse to vagueness inprobabilities. But formanyimportant decisions, peoplerarely have access to precisevalues for either outcomes or probabilities. It has been demonstrated that mostpeople held congruent attitudes towards vagueness for both probabilities andoutcomes, but dimension preference was typically a better determinant of choicethan vagueness attitudes. The present study investigates vagueness effects on therelative weighting ofrisk dimensions for a particularly problematic type of hazard-risks with very small probabilities and severe consequences - using a morereliableand robust measurement procedure. Eighty-seven subjects evaluated hypotheticalhealth risk options whichvaried interms ofthe probability of loss, amountof loss,and the precision with which each dimension was specified. Relevant individualattitudes towardsvagueness and dimensionpreferenceweresignificant predictorsofchoice, and a new indication of an association between dimension salience andvagueness attitude was found: most subjects were more concerned with loss thanprobabilities, and were moreaverse to vagueness in losses as well.1. IntroductionA number of empirical studies (e.g., Ellsberg,
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信