When Experience Meets Description: How Dyads Integrate Experiential and Descriptive Information in Risky Decisions

References

• Abdellaoui M (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Sci. 46(11):1497–1512.Link, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M, L’Haridon O, Paraschiv C (2011) Experienced vs. described uncertainty: Do we need two prospect theory specifications? Management Sci. 57(10):1879–1895.Link, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Au WT, Bender RH, Budescu DV, Dietz CB, Gu H, Zauberman G (2000) The effects of averaging subjective probability estimates between and within judges. J. Experiment. Psych.: Appl. 6(2):130–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armstrong JS (2001) Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barron G, Leider S (2010) The role of experience in the Gambler’s Fallacy. J. Behavioral Decision Making 23(1):117–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barron G, Leider S, Stack J (2008) The effect of safe experience on a warning’s impact: Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 106(2):125–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL (2000) A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Sci. 46(11):1485–1496.Link, Google Scholar
• Camilleri AR, Newell BR (2011) Description- and experience-based choice: Does equivalent information equal equivalent choice? Acta Psychologica 136(3):276–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camilleri AR, Newell BR (2013) Mind the gap? Description, experience, and the continuum of uncertainty in risky choice. Srinivasan N, Chandrasekhar P, eds. Decision Making: Neural and Behavioural Approaches, Progress in Brain Research Series, Vol. 202 (Elsevier, Oxford, UK), 55–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemen RT (1989) Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography. Internat. J. Forecasting 5(4):559–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemen RT, Winkler RL (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal. 19(2):187–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalal RS, Bonaccio S (2010) What types of advice do decision-makers prefer? Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 112(1):11–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis JH (1973) Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psych. Rev. 80(2):97–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Wit JB, Das E, Vet R (2008) What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psych. 27(1):110–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diecidue E, Wakker PP (2002) Dutch books: Avoiding strategic and dynamic complications, and a comonotonic extension. Math. Soc. Sci. 43(2):135–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM, Klempner E (1977) Quality of group judgment. Psych. Bull. 84(1):158–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erev I, Ert E, Roth AE, Haruvy E, Herzog SM, Hau R, Lebiere C (2010) A choice prediction competition: Choices from experience and from description. J. Behavioral Decision Making 23(1):15–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA (2005) Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: Is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Medical Decision Making 25(4):398–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faro D, Rottenstreich Y (2006) Affect, empathy, and regressive mispredictions of others’ preferences under risk. Management Sci. 52(4):529–541.Link, Google Scholar
• Hadar L, Fox CR (2009) Information asymmetry in decision from description versus decision from experience. Judgment and Decision Making 4(4):317–325.Google Scholar
• Harvey N, Fischer I (1997) Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 70(2):117–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hau R, Pleskac TJ, Hertwig R (2010) Decisions from experience and statistical probabilities: Why they trigger different choices than a priori probabilities. J. Behavioral Decision Making 23(1):48–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hau R, Pleskac T, Kiefer J, Hertwig R (2008) The description–experience gap in risky choice: The role of sample size and experienced probabilities. J. Behavioral Decision Making 21(5):493–518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R (2016) Decisions from experience. Keren G, Wu G, eds. Blackwell Handbook of Decision Making (Blackwell, Oxford, UK), 239–267.Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Erev I (2009) The description–experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sci. 13(12):517–523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber EU, Erev I (2004) Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psych. Sci. 15(8):534–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM, Soyer E (2011) Sequentially simulated outcomes: Kind experience vs. nontransparent description. J. Experiment. Psych.: General 140(3):434–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber PJ, Ronchetti EM (2009) Robust Statistics, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Isenberg DJ (1986) Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 50(6):1141–1151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janis IL (1971) Groupthink. Psych. Today 5(6):43–46.Google Scholar
• Jessup RK, Bishara AJ, Busemeyer JR (2008) Feedback produces divergence from prospect theory in descriptive choice. Psych. Sci. 19(10):1015–1022.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Soll JB (2006) Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Sci. 52(1):111–127.Link, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Mannes AE, Soll JB (2012) The social psychology of the wisdom of crowds. Krueger JI, ed. Frontiers of Social Psychology: Social Psychology and Decision Making (Psychology Press, Philadelphia), 227–242.Google Scholar
• Lejarraga T (2010) When experience is better than description: Time delays and complexity. J. Behavioral Decision Making 23(1):100–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lejarraga T, Gonzalez C (2011) Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 116(2):286–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lejarraga T, Hertwig R, Gonzalez C (2012) How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience. Cognition 124(3):334–342.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li SYW, Rakow TR, Newell BR (2009) Personal experience in doctor and patient decision making: From psychology to medicine. J. Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15(6):993–995.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (2000) Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches (Lawrence Erlbaum, London).Google Scholar
• March JG, Shapira Z (1987) Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Sci. 33(11):1404–1418.Link, Google Scholar
• Minson JA, Liberman V, Ross L (2011) Two to tango: The effect of collaborative experience and disagreement on dyadic judgment. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 37:1325–1338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips ND, Hertwig R, Kareev Y, Avrahami J (2014) Rivals in the dark: How competition influences search in decisions under uncertainty. Cognition 133(1):104–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pleskac TJ, Hertwig R (2014) Ecologically rational choice and the structure of the environment. J. Experiment. Psych.: General 143(5):2000–2019.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497–528.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soll JB, Larrick RP (2009) Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learn., Memory, Cognition 35(3):780–805.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart T (2001) Improving reliability of judgmental forecasts. Armstrong J, ed. Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA), 81–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stoner JA (1968) Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 4(4):442–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stott HP (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty 32(2):101–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Surowiecki J (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations (Random House, New York).Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ungemach C, Chater N, Stewart N (2009) Are probabilities overweighted or underweighted when rare outcomes are experienced (rarely)? Psych. Sci. 20(4):473–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Stewart N (2015) How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. J. Experiment. Psych.: General 144(1):7–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaniv I (2004) The benefit of additional opinions. Current Directions Psych. Sci. 13(2):75–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yaniv I, Kleinberger E (2000) Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 83(2):260–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yechiam E, Erev I, Barron G (2006) The effect of experience on using a safety device. Safety Sci. 44(6):515–522.Crossref, Google Scholar