Impact of Compound and Reduced Specification on Valuation of Projects with Multiple Risks

References

• Abdellaoui M, Klibanoff P, Placido L (2015) Experiments on compound risk in relation to simple risk and to ambiguity. Management Sci. 61(6):1306–1322.Link, Google Scholar
• Arkes HR (1991) Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. Psych. Bull. 110(3):486–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bansal S, Transchel S (2014) Managing supply risk for vertically differentiated co-products. Production Oper. Management 23(9):1577–1598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bansal S, Gutierrez GJ, Keiser JR (2016) Quantifying uncertainties and risks using managerial judgments in a dynamic new product development environment. Production Oper. Management 25(12):2010–2013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bansal S, Gutierrez GJ, Keiser JR (2017) Using experts’ noisy quantile judgments to quantify risks: Theory and application to Agribusiness. Oper. Res. 65(5):1115–1130.Link, Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel M (1973) On the subjective probability of compound events. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 9(3):396–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barham BL, Chavas J-P, Fitz D, Salas VR, Schechter L (2014) The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 97:204–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besharov G (2004) Second-best considerations in correcting cognitive biases. Southern Econom. J. 71(1):12–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Fischer I (2001) The same but different: An empirical investigation of the reducibility principle. J. Behavioral Decision Making 14(3):187–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman C, Ward S (1996) Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Clemen RT, Ulu C (2008) Interior additivity and subjective probability assessment of continuous variables. Management Sci. 54(4):835–851.Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Hansel CEM (1957) The nature of decisions in gambling: Equivalence of single and compound subjective probabilities. Acta Psychologica 13:357–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooke RM (1991) Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elabed G, Carter MR (2015) Compound-risk aversion, ambiguity and the willingness to pay for microinsurance. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 118:150–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elabed G, Bellemare MF, Carter MR, Guirkinger C (2013) Managing basis risk with multiscale index insurance. Agricultural Econom. 44(4–5):419–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. 75(4):643–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gerchak Y, Wang Y, Yano CA (1994) Lot sizing in assembly systems with random component yields. IIE Trans. 26(2):19–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy Y (2007) Ellsberg revisited: An experimental study. Econometrica 75(2):503–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Cox JC (2008) Risk Aversion in Experiments, Vol. 12 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK).Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Rutstrom EE (2008) Risk aversion in the laboratory. Risk Aversion in Experiments (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 41–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Martínez-Correa J, Swarthout JT (2015) Reduction of compound lotteries with objective probabilities: Theory and evidence. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 119:32–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Lovallo D (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Sci. 39(1):17–31.Link, Google Scholar
• Keller LR (1985) Testing of the “reduction of compound alternatives” principle. Omega 13(4):349–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li M, Petruzzi NC, Zhang J (2016) Overconfident competing newsvendors. Management Sci 63(8):2637–2646.Link, Google Scholar
• Merrick JR (2008) Getting the right mix of experts. Decision Anal. 5(1):43–52.Link, Google Scholar
• Merrick JR, van Dorp R (2006) Speaking the truth in maritime risk assessment. Risk Anal. 26(1):223–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nilsson H (2008) Exploring the conjunction fallacy within a category learning framework. J. Behavioral Decision Making 21(4):471–490.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Segal U (1990) Two-stage lotteries without the reduction axiom. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. 58(2):349–377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stonebraker JS (2002) How Bayer makes decisions to develop new drugs. Interfaces 32(6):77–90.Link, Google Scholar
• Turner BM, Steyvers M, Merkle EC, Budescu DV, Wallsten TS (2014) Forecast aggregation via recalibration. Machine Learn. 95(3):261–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ward J, Zhang B, Jain S, Fry C, Olavson T, Mishal H, Amaral J, Beyer D, Brecht A, Cargille B, et al. (2010) HP transforms product portfolio management with operations research. Interfaces 40(1):17–32.Link, Google Scholar
• Winman A, Juslin P, Lindskog M, Nilsson H, Kerimi N (2014) The role of ANS acuity and numeracy for the calibration and the coherence of subjective probability judgments. Frontiers Psych. 5.Google Scholar
• Wu SD, Kempf KG, Atan MO, Aytac B, Shirodkar SA, Mishra A (2010) Improving new-product forecasting at Intel corporation. Interfaces 40(5):385–396.Link, Google Scholar
• Yates JF, Carlson BW (1986) Conjunction errors: Evidence for multiple judgment procedures, including “signed summation.” Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 37(2):230–253.Crossref, Google Scholar