The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The “bomb” risk elicitation task
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods
Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555217 · Cited by 1,288
Chapter 113 Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2008) · Handbook of Experimental Economics Results · doi:10.1016/s1574-0722(07)00113-8 · Cited by 924
An Experimental Test of Loss Aversion
Schmidt, U., & Traub, S. (2002) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1023/a:1020923921649 · Cited by 233
Cited by
A Turing Test of Whether AI Chatbots Are Behaviorally Similar to Humans
Mei, Q., Xie, Y., Yuan, W., & Jackson, M. O. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2313925121 · Cited by 254
Peer effects and risk sharing in experimental asset markets
Gortner, P. J., & van der Weele, J. J. (2019) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.04.001 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Crosetto, P., & Filippin, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
- Published
- 2013-07-24
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-65
- ISSN
- 0895-5646 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0476
- OpenAlex
- W3124050051
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 7.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The “bomb” risk elicitation task. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11166-013-9170-z
- The paper
- Crosetto, P., & Filippin, A. (2013). The “bomb” risk elicitation task. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-013-9170-z
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
