Subjective Probability Assessment in Decision Analysis: Partition Dependence and Bias Toward the Ignorance Prior

References

• Arkes H. R. Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. Psych. Bull. (1991) 110:486–498Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S., Thaler R. Naive diversification strategies in retirement saving plans. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91:79–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum M. H. Causes of U.C. Allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection. J. Math. Psych. (2004) 48:87–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brier G. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Rev. (1950) 78:1–3Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chapman G. B., Johnson E. J., Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (2002) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 120–138Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark H. H., Lindzey G., Aronson E. Language use and language users. Handbook of Social Psychology (1985) 2(Random House, New York) 179–232Google Scholar
• Clemen R. T., Reilly T.Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools (2001) (Duxbury, Belmont, CA) Google Scholar
• Clemen R. T., Ulu C. Interior additivity and subjective probability assessment of continuous variables. (2005) . Working paper, Duke University, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
• Cooke R. M.Experts in Uncertainty: Opinions and Subjective Probability in Science (1991) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Dubé-Rioux L., Russo J. E. An availability bias in professional judgment. J. Behavioral Decision Making (1988) 1:223–237Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N., Gilovich T. Putting adjustment back into the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Self-generated versus experimenter provided anchors. Psych. Sci. (2001) 12:391–396Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiedler K., Armbruster T. Two halfs may be more than one whole: Category-split effects on frequency illusions. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1994) 66:633–645Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. J. Experiment. Psych.: Human Perception Performance (1978) 4:330–344Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Levav J. Partition-edit-count: Naïve extensional reasoning in judgment of conditional probabilities. J. Experiment. Psych.: General (2004) 133:626–642Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Rottenstreich Y. Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty. Psych. Sci. (2003) 13:195–200Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Bardolet D., Lieb D., Zwick R., Rappoport A. Partition dependence in decision analysis, resource allocation, and consumer choice. Experimental Business Research (2005) 3(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Ratner R. K., Lieb D. Forthcoming. How subjective grouping of options influences choice and allocation: Diversification bias and the phenomenon of partition dependence. J. Experiment. Psych.: GeneralForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D.Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (2002) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grice H. P., Cole, Morgan J. L. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (1975) (Academic Press, New York) 41–58Google Scholar
• Hacking I.The Emergence of Probability (1975) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Google Scholar
• Harries C., Harvey N. Are absolute frequencies, relative frequencies, or both effective in reducing cognitive biases? J. Behavioral Decision Making (2000) 13:431–444Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirt E. R., Castellan N. J. Probability and category identification in the fault tree paradigm. J. Experiment. Psych.: Human Perception Performance (1988) 14:112–131Google Scholar
• Howard R. A. Decision analysis: Practice and promise. Management Sci. (1988) 34:679–695Link, Google Scholar
• Johnson R. D., Rennie R. D., Wells G. L. Outcome trees and baseball: A study of expertise and list-length effects. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1991) 50:324–340Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Amer. Psychologist (1984) 39:341–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A.Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney R., von Winterfeldt D. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management (1991) 38:191–201Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klayman J., Soll J. B., Gonzales-Vallejo C., Barlas S. Overconfidence: It depends on how, what, and whom you ask. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1999) 79:216–247Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langer T., Fox C. R. Naïve diversification in allocation among risky prospects: Partition-dependence, unit-dependence, and procedure-dependence. (2005) . Working paper, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
• Larrick R. P., Koehler D., Harvey N. Debiasing. The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (2004) (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S., Fischhoff B., Phillips L., Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 306–334Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merkhofer M. W. Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences, and insights. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybernetics (1987) 17:741–752Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgan M., Henrion M.Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Management (1990) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ofir C. Ease of recall vs. recalled evidence in judgment: Experts vs. laymen. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (2000) 81:28–42Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orne M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Amer. Psychologist (1962) 17:776–783Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rottenstreich Y., Tversky A. Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psych. Rev. (1997) 2:406–415Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo J. E., Kolzow K. J. Where is the fault in fault trees? J. Experiment. Psych.: Human Perception Performance (1994) 20:17–32Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwarz N., Bless B., Strack G., Klumpp G., Schatka H. R., Simons A. Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1991) 61:195–202Crossref, Google Scholar
• See K. E., Fox C. R., Rottenstreich Y. Attribute-cued partitioning and learning in judgment under uncertainty. (2005) . Working paper, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
• Sloman S., Rottenstreich Y., Wisniewski E., Hadjichristidis C., Fox C. R. Typical versus atypical unpacking and superadditive probability judgment. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learning, Memory Cognition (2004) 30:573–582Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spetzler C. S., Staël Von Holstein C.-A. Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Sci. (1975) 22:340–352Link, Google Scholar
• Starmer C., Sugden R. Testing for juxtaposition and event-splitting effects. J. Risk Uncertainty (1993) 6:235–254Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psych. (1973) 4:207–232Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science (1974) 185:1124–1131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J. Bus. (1986) 59:251–278Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Koehler D. Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psych. Rev. (1994) 101:547–567Crossref, Google Scholar
• van der Pligt J., Eiser J. R., Speark R. Comparative judgments and preferences: The influence of the number of response alternatives. British J. Soc. Psych. (1987) 26:269–280Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Schie E. C. M., van der Pligt J., Borsherding K., Larichev O. I., Messick D. M. Influence diagrams and fault trees: The role of salience and anchoring. Contemporary Issues in Decision Making (1990) (North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 177–188Google Scholar
• Van Schie E. C. M., van der Pligt J. Getting an anchor on availability in causal judgment. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes (1994) 57:140–154Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W.Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research (1986) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Google Scholar
• Weber M., Eisenfuhr F., von Winterfeldt D. The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Sci. (1988) 34:431–445Link, Google Scholar
• Windschitl P. D., Wells G. L. The alternative-outcomes effect. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1998) 75:1411–1423Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yates J. F.Judgment and Decision Making (1990) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar