Cited by 1,225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice

Hertwig, Ralph, Barron, Greg, Weber, Elke U., Erev, Ido·2004·Psychological Science

Abstract

When people have access to information sources such as newspaper weather forecasts, drug-package inserts, and mutual-fund brochures, all of which provide convenient descriptions of risky prospects, they can make decisions from description. When people must decide whether to back up their computer's hard drive, cross a busy street, or go out on a date, however, they typically do not have any summary description of the possible outcomes or their likelihoods. For such decisions, people can call only on their own encounters with such prospects, making decisions from experience. Decisions from experience and decisions from description can lead to dramatically different choice behavior. In the case of decisions from description, people make choices as if they overweight the probability of rare events, as described by prospect theory. We found that in the case of decisions from experience, in contrast, people make choices as if they underweight the probability of rare events, and we explored the impact of two possible causes of this underweighting—reliance on relatively small samples of information and overweighting of recently sampled information. We conclude with a call for two different theories of risky choice.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.2307/1907921 · DOI
  2. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2772 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/bdm.443 · DOI
  4. 10.1017/CBO9780511803475.017 · DOI
  5. Chu Y.P., 1990, American Economic Review, 80, 902
  6. 10.1037/0033-295X.105.2.280 · DOI
  7. 10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.659 · DOI
  8. Hertwig R., Information sampling as a key to understanding adaptive cognition
  9. 10.1017/S0140525X01004149 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-J · DOI
  11. Jorland G., 1987, The probabilistic revolution: Vol. I. Ideas in history, 157
  12. 10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.397 · DOI
  13. 10.1037/0096-3445.131.2.287 · DOI
  14. 10.1017/S0140525X00041157 · DOI
  15. von Neuman J., 1947, Theory of games and economic behavior
  16. 10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1151 · DOI
  17. 10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.430 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,225

Metadata

Authors
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  • Harvard University
  • Columbia University
  • Technion, Haifa, Israel
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2004-08
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
534-539
ISSN
  • 0956-7976
  • 1467-9280
Cited by
1,225
References
3
Language
en

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