Choosing the Devil You Don’t Know: Evidence for Limited Sensitivity to Sample Size–Based Uncertainty When It Offers an Advantage

References

• Antoniou C, Harrison GW, Lau MI, Read D (2014) Information characteristics and errors in expectations: Experimental evidence. Working paper, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel M (1979) The role of sample size in sample evaluation. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 24(2):245–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernoulli D (1954) Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica 22(1):23–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bollinger CR, Hotchkiss JL (2003) The upside potential of hiring risky workers: Evidence from the baseball industry. J. Labor Econom. 21(4):923–944.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brunswik E (1955) Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psych. Rev. 62(3):193–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burgess S, Lane J, Stevens D (1998) Hiring risky workers: Some evidence. J. Econom. Management Strategy 7(4):669–676.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cahan S (2010) Decision quality (always) increases with the size of information samples-provided that the decision rule is statistically valid: Comment on Fiedler and Kareev (2006). J. Experiment. Psych. Learn., Memory, Cognition 36(3):829–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Curley SP, Yates JF (1985) The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 36(2):273–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Curley SP, Yates JF (1989) An empirical evaluation of descriptive models of ambiguity reactions in choice situations. J. Math. Psych. 33(4):397–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dixit A, Nalebuff B (1991) Thinking Strategically: The Competitive Edge in Business, Politics, and Everyday Life (W. W. Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. 75(4):643–669.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans JSBT, Dusoir D (1977) Proportionality and sample size as factors in intuitive statistical judgement. Acta Psych. 41(2–3):129–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiedler K, Kareev Y (2006) Does decision quality (always) increase with the size of information samples? Some vicissitudes in applying the law of large numbers. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learn., Memory, Cognition 32(4):883–903.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiegenbaum A, Thomas H (1988) Attitudes toward risk and the risk–return paradox: Prospect theory explanations. Acad. Management J. 31(1):85–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1977) Mean-risk analysis with risk associated with below-target returns. Amer. Econom. Rev. 67(2):116–126.Google Scholar
• Griffin D, Tversky A (1992) The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psych. 24(3):411–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heath C, Larrick RP, Wu G (1999) Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psych. 38(1):79–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hendricks W, DeBrock L, Koenker R (2003) Uncertainty, hiring, and subsequent performance: The NFL draft. J. Labor Econom. 21(4):857–886.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM, Einhorn HJ (1990) Venture theory: A model of decision weights. Management Sci. 36(7):780–803.Link, Google Scholar
• Irwin FW, Smith WA, Mayfield JF (1956) Tests of two theories of decision in an expanded judgment situation. J. Experiment. Psych. 51(4):261–268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobs JE, Narloch RH (2001) Children’s use of sample size and variability to make social inferences. J. Appl. Developmental Psych. 22(3):311–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kacelnik A, Bateson M (1996) Risky theories—The effects of variance on foraging decisions. Amer. Zoologist 36(4):402–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahn BE, Sarin RK (1988) Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. J. Consumer Res. 15(2):265–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kareev Y (2000) Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations. Psych. Rev. 107(2):397–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kareev Y, Avrahami J (2007) Choosing between adaptive agents: Some unexpected implications of level of scrutiny. Psych. Sci. 18(7):636–641.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laughhunn DJ, Payne JW, Crum R (1980) Managerial risk preferences for below-target returns. Management Sci. 26(12):1238–1249.Link, Google Scholar
• Lazear EP (1995) Hiring risky workers. NBER Working Paper 5334, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lopes LL (1981) Decision making in the short run. J. Experiment. Psych.: Human Learn. Memory 7(5):377–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG, Shapira Z (1987) Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Sci. 33(11):1404–1418.Link, Google Scholar
• Markowitz H (1952) The utility of wealth. J. Political Econom. 60(2):151–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masnick AM, Morris BJ (2008) Investigating the development of data evaluation: The role of data characteristics. Child Development 79(4):1032–1048.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Norton MI, Frost JH, Ariely D (2007) Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 92(1):97–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obrecht NA, Chesney DL (2013) Sample representativeness affects whether judgments are influenced by base rate or sample size. Acta Psych. 142(3):370–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obrecht NA, Chapman GB, Gelman R (2007) Intuitive tests: Lay use of statistical information. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 14(6):1147–1152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Laughhunn DJ, Crum R (1980) Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Management Sci. 26(10):1039–1060.Link, Google Scholar
• Peterson CR, DuCharme WM, Edwards W (1968) Sampling distributions and probability revisions. J. Experiment. Psych. 76(2, Part 1):236–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rode C, Cosmides L, Hell W, Tooby J (1999) When and why do people avoid unknown probabilities in decisions under uncertainty? Testing some predictions from optimal foraging theory. Cognition 72(3):269–304.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sedlmeier P, Gigerenzer G (1997) Intuitions about sample size: The empirical law of large numbers. J. Behavioral Decision Making 10(1):33–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart. J. Econom. 69(1):99–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sung B (1966) Translations from James Bernoulli Technical Report No. 2, Contract Nonr 1866(37), NR-042-097, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar