The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting Risk Sensitivity in Humans and Lower Animals: Risk as Variance or Coefficient of Variation.
Open accessAbstract
This article examines the statistical determinants of risk preference. In a meta-analysis of animal risk preference (foraging birds and insects), the coefficient of variation (CV), a measure of risk per unit of return, predicts choices far better than outcome variance, the risk measure of normative models. In a meta-analysis of human risk preference, the superiority of the CV over variance in predicting risk taking is not as strong. Two experiments show that people's risk sensitivity becomes strongly proportional to the CV when they learn about choice alternatives like other animals, by experiential sampling over time. Experience-based choices differ from choices when outcomes and probabilities are numerically described. Zipf's law as an ecological regularity and Weber's law as a psychological regularity may give rise to the CV as a measure of risk.
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
CAPITAL ASSET PRICES: A THEORY OF MARKET EQUILIBRIUM UNDER CONDITIONS OF RISK*
Sharpe, W. F. (1964) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1964.tb02865.x · Cited by 19,441
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
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 · Cited by 6,544
Elements of psychophysics, 1860.
Fechner, G. T. (1948) · Readings in the history of psychology. · doi:10.1037/11304-026 · Cited by 1,307
Cited by
The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework
Camerer, C. F., Hogarth, R. M., Budescu, D. V., & Eckel, C. (1999) · Elicitation of Preferences · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1406-8_2 · Cited by 1,545
A common role of insula in feelings, empathy and uncertainty
Singer, T., Critchley, H. D., & Preuschoff, K. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.05.001 · Cited by 1,270
Weber, E. U. (2006) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3 · Cited by 1,250
Self-citationReyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x · Cited by 1,244
Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x · Cited by 1,225
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A.-R.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 430-445
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2132526093
- Cited by
- 724
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 12.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Predicting Risk Sensitivity in Humans and Lower Animals: Risk as Variance or Coefficient of Variation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.111.2.430
- The paper
- Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A.-R. (2004). Predicting Risk Sensitivity in Humans and Lower Animals: Risk as Variance or Coefficient of Variation. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.111.2.430
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.
