The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From anomalies to forecasts: Toward a descriptive model of decisions under risk, under ambiguity, and from experience.
Abstract
(BEAST), allow surprisingly accurate ex ante predictions of behavior. Unlike the popular models, BEAST does not assume subjective weighting functions or cognitive shortcuts. Rather, it assumes the use of sampling tools and reliance on small samples, in addition to the estimation of the expected values. (PsycINFO Database Record
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
Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232669 · Cited by 4,042
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173933 · Cited by 3,487
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0016973 · Cited by 2,583
Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122575 · Cited by 1,795
The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Schwartz, A. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555226 · Cited by 1,051
Cited by
Schulze, C., & Hertwig, R. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104580 · Cited by 36
Over and under commitment to a course of action in decisions from experience.
Cohen, D., & Erev, I. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0001066 · Cited by 9
Self-citationThe impact of experience on the tendency to accept recommended defaults
Roth, Y., Waldman, G. M., & Erev, I. (2024) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2023.49
Self-citationDesigning Human-Automation Redundancy: Overreliance, Automation Shirking, and the Operator’s Dilemma
Cohen, D., Roth, Y., Rieskamp, J., & Schöbel, M. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5098488
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Erev, I., Ert, E., Plonsky, O., Cohen, D., & Cohen, O.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 369-409
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2592002913
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 14.26
- 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: From anomalies to forecasts: Toward a descriptive model of decisions under risk, under ambiguity, and from experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/rev0000062
- The paper
- Erev, I., Ert, E., Plonsky, O., Cohen, D., & Cohen, O. (2017). From anomalies to forecasts: Toward a descriptive model of decisions under risk, under ambiguity, and from experience. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000062
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.
