Pub Date : 2002-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000698
O. Huber, A. Wearing
{"title":"Better ways of breeding Lizards: simulating three strategies for managing a multistage investment decision task","authors":"O. Huber, A. Wearing","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000698","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"173 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126791932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000674
Youngseo Kim
{"title":"Satisficing and fairness in ultimatum bargaining game experiments","authors":"Youngseo Kim","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000674","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121308497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000704
G. Bonanno
Two views of game theory are discussed: (1) game theory as a description of the behavior of rational individuals who recognize each other’s reationality and reasoning abilities, and (2) game theory as an internally consistent recommendation to individuals on how to act in interactive situations. It is shown that the same mathematical tool, namely modal logic, can be used to explicitly model both views. Game theory can be thought of as being composed of two separate modules. The first module consists of a formal language for the description of interactive situations, that is, situations where several individuals take actions that affect each other. This language provides alternative descriptions, from the more detailed one of extensive forms to the more condensed notions of strategic form and coalitional form. The language of game theory has proved to be useful in such diverse fields as economics, political science, military science, evolutionary biology, computer science, mathematical logic, experimental psychology, sociology and social philosophy. The unifying role of the game-theoretic language has been a major achievement in itself. The second module is represented by the collection of solution concepts. Each solution concept associates with every game in a given class an outcome or set of outcomes. Most of the debate in game theory has centered on this module, in particular on the rationale for, and interpretation of, various solution concepts. From a broader point of view, the issue of debate is what the role and aims of game theory are (or should be). In this respect one can distinguish at least four different views of game theory: 1. Game theory as a description of how rational individuals behave: Briefly put, game and economic theory are concerned with the interactive behavior of Homo rationalis ‐ rational man. Homo rationalis is the species that always acts both purposefully and logically, has well-defined goals, is motivated solely by the desire to approach these goals as closely as possible, and has the calculating ability required to do so. (Aumann, 1985, p. 35)
{"title":"Modal logic and game theory: two alternative approaches","authors":"G. Bonanno","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000704","url":null,"abstract":"Two views of game theory are discussed: (1) game theory as a description of the behavior of rational individuals who recognize each other’s reationality and reasoning abilities, and (2) game theory as an internally consistent recommendation to individuals on how to act in interactive situations. It is shown that the same mathematical tool, namely modal logic, can be used to explicitly model both views. Game theory can be thought of as being composed of two separate modules. The first module consists of a formal language for the description of interactive situations, that is, situations where several individuals take actions that affect each other. This language provides alternative descriptions, from the more detailed one of extensive forms to the more condensed notions of strategic form and coalitional form. The language of game theory has proved to be useful in such diverse fields as economics, political science, military science, evolutionary biology, computer science, mathematical logic, experimental psychology, sociology and social philosophy. The unifying role of the game-theoretic language has been a major achievement in itself. The second module is represented by the collection of solution concepts. Each solution concept associates with every game in a given class an outcome or set of outcomes. Most of the debate in game theory has centered on this module, in particular on the rationale for, and interpretation of, various solution concepts. From a broader point of view, the issue of debate is what the role and aims of game theory are (or should be). In this respect one can distinguish at least four different views of game theory: 1. Game theory as a description of how rational individuals behave: Briefly put, game and economic theory are concerned with the interactive behavior of Homo rationalis ‐ rational man. Homo rationalis is the species that always acts both purposefully and logically, has well-defined goals, is motivated solely by the desire to approach these goals as closely as possible, and has the calculating ability required to do so. (Aumann, 1985, p. 35)","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128245784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000686
Murat Işık, M. Khanna
This paper develops a behavioral model of farmer decision making to analyze the incentives for adoption of a technology that provides information about spatial variability in nutrient availability and enables variable rate application of fertilizers. It examines the implications of uncertainty about the accuracy of the technology on input application and adoption decisions. Risk aversion and uncertainty can lead to the imposition of a risk premium on input use, which create incentives to over or under apply fertilizers. This influences not only the incentives to adopt the technology but also the impact of adoption on pollution. High spatial variability mitigates the disincentives for adoption even if fixed costs are high and farm size is small but the extent to which this occurs depends on the degree of risk aversion and uncertainty. These results have implications for the design and effectiveness of cost–share subsidies to induce adoption and reduce over application of fertilizers.
{"title":"Uncertainty and spatial variability: incentives for variable rate technology adoption in agriculture","authors":"Murat Işık, M. Khanna","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000686","url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops a behavioral model of farmer decision making to analyze the incentives for adoption of a technology that provides information about spatial variability in nutrient availability and enables variable rate application of fertilizers. It examines the implications of uncertainty about the accuracy of the technology on input application and adoption decisions. Risk aversion and uncertainty can lead to the imposition of a risk premium on input use, which create incentives to over or under apply fertilizers. This influences not only the incentives to adopt the technology but also the impact of adoption on pollution. High spatial variability mitigates the disincentives for adoption even if fixed costs are high and farm size is small but the extent to which this occurs depends on the degree of risk aversion and uncertainty. These results have implications for the design and effectiveness of cost–share subsidies to induce adoption and reduce over application of fertilizers.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133723465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000716
I. Kozine, L. Utkin
{"title":"Processing unreliable judgements with an imprecise hierarchical model","authors":"I. Kozine, L. Utkin","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000716","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116659754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000637
M. Gerrard, F. Gibbons, L. S. V. Lune, Nancy A. Pexa, Michelle L. Gano
The current study examined the hypothesis that adolescents' absolute and comparative perceptions of vulnerability to potential negative consequences of substance use mediate the relation between traditional predictors of use, and actual substance use. The data support the hypothesis in that absolute risk perceptions mediate the relations between parental communication about substances, peer substance use and risk-taking tendency, and subsequent adolescent use. Comparative risk perceptions, however, are only weakly related to these three predictors, and do not predict subsequent use. The data also replicate earlier findings that behavioral willingness mediates the relation between risk perceptions and behavior. Methodological and applied implications are discussed.
{"title":"Adolescents' substance-related risk perceptions: antecedents, mediators and consequences","authors":"M. Gerrard, F. Gibbons, L. S. V. Lune, Nancy A. Pexa, Michelle L. Gano","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000637","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000637","url":null,"abstract":"The current study examined the hypothesis that adolescents' absolute and comparative perceptions of vulnerability to potential negative consequences of substance use mediate the relation between traditional predictors of use, and actual substance use. The data support the hypothesis in that absolute risk perceptions mediate the relations between parental communication about substances, peer substance use and risk-taking tendency, and subsequent adolescent use. Comparative risk perceptions, however, are only weakly related to these three predictors, and do not predict subsequent use. The data also replicate earlier findings that behavioral willingness mediates the relation between risk perceptions and behavior. Methodological and applied implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121044741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000625
Y. Klar, D. Zakay, Keren Sharvit
In a nationwide study, we explored how Israelis, currently stricken by an intense wave of terrorism, perceive the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack. We studied both absolute and comparative (i.e., vis-a-vis other people at the area of residence) perceived controllability and vulnerability. The picture that emerges is one of realism. We found no evidence of the comparative optimistic illusions, which characterizes the risk-perception literature. Most participants report some level of behavior change and precautions against the threat of terrorism, but most of them were doubtful about the effectiveness of these precautionary attempts. Perceived absolute vulnerability was the only risk perception variable related to precautionary behaviors. We discuss the disappearance of comparative optimistic biases when the threat is clearly realistic.
{"title":"‘If I don't get blown up ...’: realism in face of terrorism in an Israeli nationwide sample","authors":"Y. Klar, D. Zakay, Keren Sharvit","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000625","url":null,"abstract":"In a nationwide study, we explored how Israelis, currently stricken by an intense wave of terrorism, perceive the risk of being the victim of a terrorist attack. We studied both absolute and comparative (i.e., vis-a-vis other people at the area of residence) perceived controllability and vulnerability. The picture that emerges is one of realism. We found no evidence of the comparative optimistic illusions, which characterizes the risk-perception literature. Most participants report some level of behavior change and precautions against the threat of terrorism, but most of them were doubtful about the effectiveness of these precautionary attempts. Perceived absolute vulnerability was the only risk perception variable related to precautionary behaviors. We discuss the disappearance of comparative optimistic biases when the threat is clearly realistic.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"114 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113999749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000595
S. Sutton
Using an experimental manipulation embedded in a national survey, this study investigated the effect on smokers' risk judgments of receiving accurate information about the cigarette consumption of the average smoker. It was hypothesized that this information would reduce smokers' estimates of the risk of lung cancer faced by the average smoker (‘other's risk’) and hence influence their comparative risk judgments. As predicted, the information made lighter smokers more optimistic and heavier smokers less optimistic. However, the experimental manipulation had no effect on intention to give up smoking. The difference score (other's risk minus own risk) correlated 0.52 with the single-item comparative risk measure. The former measure showed a small but significant optimistic bias whereas the latter measure showed a small but significant pessimistic bias. The findings are discussed in terms of measurement issues and the implications for interventions designed to influence risk perceptions.
{"title":"Influencing optimism in smokers by giving information about the average smoker","authors":"S. Sutton","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000595","url":null,"abstract":"Using an experimental manipulation embedded in a national survey, this study investigated the effect on smokers' risk judgments of receiving accurate information about the cigarette consumption of the average smoker. It was hypothesized that this information would reduce smokers' estimates of the risk of lung cancer faced by the average smoker (‘other's risk’) and hence influence their comparative risk judgments. As predicted, the information made lighter smokers more optimistic and heavier smokers less optimistic. However, the experimental manipulation had no effect on intention to give up smoking. The difference score (other's risk minus own risk) correlated 0.52 with the single-item comparative risk measure. The former measure showed a small but significant optimistic bias whereas the latter measure showed a small but significant pessimistic bias. The findings are discussed in terms of measurement issues and the implications for interventions designed to influence risk perceptions.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"173 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124251569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000583
P. Harris, P. Sparks, Monique M. Raats
Klein (1997) found that participants were more influenced by information about their comparative risk standing than information about their absolute risk standing. If reliable, these findings have important implications for understanding and improving risk communication. In this paper we report the findings of several unsuccessful attempts by us to replicate Klein's findings in the UK, using one of his experimental paradigms, and discuss the findings of other recent attempts to replicate his work. Findings are inconsistent from study to study but, overall, provide some evidence that people respond to comparative and not just to absolute risk information. Issues that need to be addressed systematically in future research include: the ambiguity of absolute information, proportional differences in risk magnitude, cross-cultural and individual differences in preferences for social comparison information, and the systematic exploration of responses to absolute and comparative risk information in real choice situations.
{"title":"Theoretical and applied issues in the provision of absolute and comparative risk information","authors":"P. Harris, P. Sparks, Monique M. Raats","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000583","url":null,"abstract":"Klein (1997) found that participants were more influenced by information about their comparative risk standing than information about their absolute risk standing. If reliable, these findings have important implications for understanding and improving risk communication. In this paper we report the findings of several unsuccessful attempts by us to replicate Klein's findings in the UK, using one of his experimental paradigms, and discuss the findings of other recent attempts to replicate his work. Findings are inconsistent from study to study but, overall, provide some evidence that people respond to comparative and not just to absolute risk information. Issues that need to be addressed systematically in future research include: the ambiguity of absolute information, proportional differences in risk magnitude, cross-cultural and individual differences in preferences for social comparison information, and the systematic exploration of responses to absolute and comparative risk information in real choice situations.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122909630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2002-06-01DOI: 10.1017/S1357530902000558
A. Schwartz, M. Hasnain
The standard account of the ‘reflection effect’ (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) is that attitude toward risk changes across gain or loss framings of outcomes. Weber and Bottom (1989) proposed an alternative account in which decision makers have stable risk attitudes, but changing risk perceptions. Undergraduates were randomly assigned to read one of three hypothetical informed consent documents from a trial of a cholesterol-lowering drug. Documents used gain, loss or both framings to describe expected benefits. Respondents rated riskiness of participation and non-participation in the trial and made a choice about whether they would participate in the trial.The reflection effect was replicated. In addition, as predicted by the Weber and Bottom account, respondents in the gain condition were more likely to rate participation as riskier than non-participation compared to respondents in the loss condition, and in each condition more than 70 per cent of respondents chose to avoid the option they judged as riskier. Implications for informed consent are discussed.
{"title":"Risk perception and risk attitude in informed consent","authors":"A. Schwartz, M. Hasnain","doi":"10.1017/S1357530902000558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000558","url":null,"abstract":"The standard account of the ‘reflection effect’ (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) is that attitude toward risk changes across gain or loss framings of outcomes. Weber and Bottom (1989) proposed an alternative account in which decision makers have stable risk attitudes, but changing risk perceptions. Undergraduates were randomly assigned to read one of three hypothetical informed consent documents from a trial of a cholesterol-lowering drug. Documents used gain, loss or both framings to describe expected benefits. Respondents rated riskiness of participation and non-participation in the trial and made a choice about whether they would participate in the trial.The reflection effect was replicated. In addition, as predicted by the Weber and Bottom account, respondents in the gain condition were more likely to rate participation as riskier than non-participation compared to respondents in the loss condition, and in each condition more than 70 per cent of respondents chose to avoid the option they judged as riskier. Implications for informed consent are discussed.","PeriodicalId":212131,"journal":{"name":"Risk Decision and Policy","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131215961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：