Using Means Objectives to Present Risk Information

References

• Atman CJ, Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Morgan MG (1994) Designing risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, part I. Risk Anal. 14(5):779–788.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bond SD, Carlson KA, Keeney RL (2010) Improving the generation of decision objectives. Decision Anal. 7(3):238–255.Link, Google Scholar
• Chess C, Salomone KL, Hance BJ, Saville A (1995) Results of a national symposium on risk communication: Next steps for government agencies. Risk Anal. 15(2):115–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• College Board, The (2015) 2015 College-bound seniors: Total group profile report. Accessed November 6, 2015, https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/sat/total-group-2015.pdf.Google Scholar
• Corso PS, Hammitt JK, Graham JD (2001) Valuing mortality-risk reduction: Using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J. Risk Uncertainty 23(2):165–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dave C, Eckel CC, Johnson CA, Rojas C (2010) Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better? J. Risk Uncertainty 41(3):219–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feng T, Keller LR (2006) A multiple-objective decision analysis for terrorism protection: Potassium iodide distribution in nuclear incidents. Decision Anal. 3(2):76–93.Link, Google Scholar
• Fischer GW, Damodaran N, Laskey KB, Lincoln D (1987) Preferences for proxy attributes. Management Sci. 33(2):198–214.Link, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 15(2):137–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B (2000) Need to know: Analytical and psychological criteria. Roger Williams Univ. Law Rev. 6(1):55–79.Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 9(2):127–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kasperson RE (1986) Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Anal. 6(3):275–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1992) Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1999) The value of Internet commerce to the customer. Management Sci. 45(4):533–542.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (2002) Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper. Res. 50(6):935–945.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Kühberger A, Wiener C (2012) Explaining risk attitude in framing tasks by regulatory focus: A verbal protocol analysis and a simulation using fuzzy logic. Decision Anal. 9(4):359–372.Link, Google Scholar
• Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK (2001) General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making 21(1):37–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merrick JR, Grabowski M (2014) Decision performance and safety performance: A value-focused thinking study in the oil industry. Decision Anal. 11(2):105–116.Link, Google Scholar
• Merrick JR, Parnell GS, Barnett J, Garcia M (2005) A multiple-objective decision analysis of stakeholder values to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Anal. 2(1):44–57.Link, Google Scholar
• Merz JF (1993) On a decision-making paradigm of medical informed consent. J. Legal Medicine 14(2):231–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merz JF, Fischhoff B, Mazur DJ, Fischbeck PS (1993) A decision-analytic approach to developing standards of disclosure for medical informed consent. J. Products Toxics Liability 15(3): 191–215.Google Scholar
• Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Lave L, Atman CJ (1992) Communicating risk to the public. Environ. Sci. Tech. 26(11):2048–2056.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peters E, Levin IP (2008) Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment Decision Making 3(6):435–448.Google Scholar
• Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ (2008) Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn. Individual Differences 18(1):89–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch GH (1997) The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann. Internal Medicine 127(11):966–972.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon J, Regnier E, Whitney L (2014) A value-focused approach to energy transformation in the United States Department of Defense. Decision Anal. 11(2):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith VK, Desvousges WH, Fisher A, Johnson FR (1988) Learning about radon’s risk. J. Risk Uncertainty 1(2):233–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starr C, Whipple C (1984) A perspective on health and safety risk analysis. Management Sci. 30(4):452–463.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458.Crossref, Google Scholar