Details

Title

The relative input of payoffs and probabilities into risk judgment

Journal title

Polish Psychological Bulletin

Yearbook

2010

Issue

No 2

Authors

Divisions of PAS

Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne

Publisher

Committee for Psychological Science PAS

Date

2010

Identifier

DOI: 10.2478/v10059-010-0006-2

Source

Polish Psychological Bulletin; 2010; No 2

References

Brachinger H. (1997), Risk as a primitive: A survey of measures of perceived risk, OR Spektrum, 19, 235, doi.org/10.1007/BF01539781 ; Brandstatter E. (2006), The Priority Heuristic: making choices without trade-offs, Psychological Review, 113, 2, 409, doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409 ; Brigham T. (1979), Choice and Perceived Control. ; Cohen J. (1959), Preferences for Different Combinations of Chance and Skill in Gambling, Namrc, 183, 841. ; Coombs C. (1978), An experimental study of risk preferences in lotteries, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 3, 497, doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.4.3.497 ; Coombs C. (1981), Evaluation of two alternative models of a theory of risk: I. Are moment of distributions useful in assessing risk?, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 5, 1110, doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.7.5.1110 ; Coombs C. (1984), Conjoint design analysis of the bilinear model: an application to judgments of risk, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 1, 1, doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(84)90018-X ; Edwards W. (1954), The theory of decision making, Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380, doi.org/10.1037/h0053870 ; Gonzales R. (1999), On the shape of probability weighting function, Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129, doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0710 ; Heath C. (1991), Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertain, 4, 5, doi.org/10.1007/BF00057884 ; Howell W. (1971), Uncertainty from Internal and External Sources: A Clear Case of Overconfidence, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 2, 240, doi.org/10.1037/h0031206 ; Huber O. (1997), Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks, Acta Psychologica, 95, 15, doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(96)00028-5 ; Johnson E. (2008), Process models deserve process data: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006), Psychological Review, 115, 263, doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.263 ; Kahneman D. (1972), Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness, Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430, doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 ; Keller L. (1986), Empirical investigation of some properties of the perceived riskiness of gambles, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 38, 114, doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90029-4 ; Kuhn K. (1996), The relative importance of probabilities, outcomes, and vagueness in hazard risk decisions, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 301, doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0107 ; Kuhn K. (1999), Attribute tradeoffs in low probability / high consequence risks: The joint effects of dimension preference and vagueness, Risk, Decision, and Policy, 4, 31, doi.org/10.1080/135753099348085 ; Luce R. (1986), An axiomatic theory of conjoint, expected risk, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 2, 188, doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(86)90013-1 ; March J. (1987), Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking, Management Science, 33, 11, 1404, doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1404 ; Payne J. (1975), Relation of perceived risk to preferences among gambles, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104, 1, 86, doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.1.86 ; Payne J. (1976), Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366, doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90022-2 ; Rotter J. (1966), Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs, 80, 1, doi.org/10.1037/h0092976 ; Shapira Z. (1994), Risk Taking: A managerial perspective. ; Slovic P. (1967), The relative influence of probabilities and payoffs upon perceived risk of a gamble, Psychometric Science, 9, 4, 223, doi.org/10.3758/BF03330840 ; Slovic P. (1968b), Relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking, Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 78, 3, doi.org/10.1037/h0026468 ; Sokolowska J. (2000), Fairness & Cooperation. ; Tversky A. (1992), Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297, doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574 ; Tversky A. (1983), Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment, Psychological Review, 91, 293, doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293 ; Tversky A. (1994), Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability, Psychological Review, 101, 547, doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.547 ; Wagenaar W. (1972), Generation of random sequences by human subjects: a critical survey of literature, Psychological Bulletin, 77, 65, doi.org/10.1037/h0032060 ; Weiner B. (1971/72), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. ; Willemsen, M. C., Johnson, E. J. (2006). MouselabWEB: Monitoring information acquisition processes on the Web. Retrieved August 14, 2008, from <a target="_blank" href='http://www.mouselabweb.org/'>http://www.mouselabweb.org/</a>

Aims and scope

Polish Psychological Bulletin (founded in 1970) is an official journal of Polish Academy of Sciences, Committee for Psychological Science.The journal publish a variety of papers, including empirical reports of experiments, surveys and field studies, theoretical articles, controversies and analytic papers on important psychological topics. Relevance for an international readership is our prominent goal, Polish Psychological Bulletin does not publish clinical case studies, or technical articles. Submissions from all domains of psychology are encouraged, especially those that address new developments and pursue innovative approaches.

Periodically, the journal will announce a call for papers for special issues. The journal will also entertain unsolicited proposals for special issues that fit the stated scope of the Polish Psychiological Bulletin (please contact the journal’s Editor-in-Chief with a detailed description of your proposal).

All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous evaluation of content and merit by independent expert reviewers.

For information on specific requirements, please see the Author Guidelines.

Abstracting & Indexing


Abstracting and Indexing Information


• DESY Publication Database

• Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ)

• Current Contents: Social & Behavioral Sciences

• Dimensions

• EBSCO

• ERIH Plus

• Google Scholar

• Index Copernicus

• ProQuest

• PsychArchives

• Science Open

• SCOPUS (Elsevier)

• Sherpa/RoMEO

Publication Ethics Policy

Peer Review and Ethics

Polish Psychological Bulletin is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the highest standards of review.
Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be double blind peer reviewed by independent, anonymous authorities in the field.
Our guidance on publishing ethics is in accrdance with the COPE standards (see: https://publicationethics.org).
×