From the Editors—Group Decisions, Preference Elicitation, Experienced Utility, Survival Probabilities, and Portfolio Value of Information

References

• Anderson RM, Clemen R. Toward an improved methodology to construct and reconcile decision analytic preference judgments. Decision Anal. (2013) 10(2):TBDLink, Google Scholar
• Baillon A. Eliciting subjective probabilities through exchangeable events: An advantage and a limitation. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(2):76–87Link, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Rata C. A survey study of factors influencing risk-taking behavior in real-world decisions under uncertainty. Decision Anal. (2006) 3(3):163–176Link, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Sarin RK. Determinants of experienced utility: Laws and implications. Decision Anal. (2013) 10(2):TBDLink, Google Scholar
• Bickel JE. Some determinants of corporate risk aversion. Decision Anal. (2006) 3(4):233–251Link, Google Scholar
• Bickel JE. The relationship between perfect and imperfect information in a two-action risk-sensitive problem. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(3):116–128Link, Google Scholar
• Bordley RF. Combining the opinions of experts who partition events differently. Decision Anal. (2009) 6(1):38–46Link, Google Scholar
• Delquié P. The value of information and intensity of preference. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(3):129–139Link, Google Scholar
• Dias LC, Sarabando P. A note on a group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Decision Anal. (2012) 9(3):231–237Link, Google Scholar
• Dyer JS, Miles RF Jr. An actual application of collective choice theory to the selection of trajectories for the Mariner Jupiter/Saturn 1977 project. Oper. Res. (1976) 24(2):220–244Link, Google Scholar
• Ewing B, Baker E. Development of a green building decision support tool: A collaborative process. Decision Anal. (2009) 6(3):172–185Link, Google Scholar
• Foschi R, Spizzichino F. Interactions between ageing and risk properties in the analysis of burn-in problems. Decision Anal. (2012) 9(2):103–118Link, Google Scholar
• Gregory R, Fischhoff B, McDaniels T. Acceptable input: Using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decision Anal. (2005) 2(1):4–16Link, Google Scholar
• Hudomiet P, Willis RJ. Estimating second order probability beliefs from subjective survival data. Decision Anal. (2013) 10(2):TBDLink, Google Scholar
• Jacobi SK, Hobbs BF. Quantifying and mitigating the splitting bias and other value tree-induced weighting biases. Decision Anal. (2007) 4(4):194–210Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL. Foundations for group decision analysis. Decision Anal. (2013) 10(2):TBDLink, Google Scholar
• Keisler J. Value of information in portfolio decision analysis. Decision Anal. (2004) 1(3):177–189Link, Google Scholar
• Ni KS, Faissol D, Edmunds T, Wheeler R. Exploitation of ambiguous cues to infer terrorist activity. Decision Anal. (2013) 10(1):42–62Link, Google Scholar
• Paté-Cornell ME, Dillon RL. The respective roles of risk and decision analyses in decision support. Decision Anal. (2006) 3(4):220–232Link, Google Scholar
• Pratt JW, Raiffa H, Schlaifer R. The foundations of decision under uncertainty: An elementary exposition. Amer. Statist. Assoc. J. (1964) 59(306):353–375Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rios J, Rios Insua D. Supporting negotiations over influence diagrams. Decision Anal. (2009) 6(3):153–171Link, Google Scholar
• Schilling MS, Oeser N, Schaub C. How effective are decision analyses? Assessing decision process and group alignment effects. Decision Anal. (2007) 4(4):227–242Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. (1988) 95(3):371–384Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zan K, Bickel JE. Components of portfolio value of information. Decision Anal. (2013) 10(2):TBDLink, Google Scholar
• Zimper A. Do Bayesians learn their way out of ambiguity? Decision Anal. (2011) 8(4):269–285Link, Google Scholar