IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/econom/v162y2011i1p132-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The distortion of information to support an emerging evaluation of risk

Author

Listed:
  • Russo, J.E.
  • Yong, Kevyn

Abstract

A persistent problem in the assessment of the risk of an event is a bias driven by the desirability of different outcomes. However, such a desirability bias should not occur in the absence of prior dispositions toward those outcomes. This assumption is tested in an experiment designed to track the evaluation of information during an emerging evaluation of risk. Results confirm the presence of a substantial desirability bias even when there is no prior disposition toward any outcome. These findings bear implications for the assessment of risk not only in the presence of prior desirability, but also in situations currently considered benign.

Suggested Citation

  • Russo, J.E. & Yong, Kevyn, 2011. "The distortion of information to support an emerging evaluation of risk," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 132-139, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:162:y:2011:i:1:p:132-139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304-4076(10)00147-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carlson, Kurt A. & Pearo, Lisa Klein, 2004. "Limiting predecisional distortion by prior valuation of attribute components," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 48-59, May.
    2. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    3. William Boulding & Ajay Kalra & Richard Staelin, 1999. "The Quality Double Whammy," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 463-484.
    4. J. Edward Russo & Margaret G. Meloy & T. Jeffrey Wilks, 2000. "Predecisional Distortion of Information by Auditors and Salespersons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 13-27, January.
    5. Edward J. Russo & Kurt A. Carlson & Margaret G. Meloy & Kevyn Yong, 2008. "The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion," Post-Print hal-00481326, HAL.
    6. Russo, J. Edward & Medvec, Victoria Husted & Meloy, Margaret G., 1996. "The Distortion of Information during Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 102-110, April.
    7. Kernic, M.A. & Wolf, M.E. & Holt, V.L., 2000. "Rates and relative risk of hospital admission among women in violent intimate partner relationships," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(9), pages 1416-1420.
    8. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    9. Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward, 2004. "Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 114-128, March.
    10. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. DeKay, Michael L. & Miller, Seth A. & Schley, Dan R. & Erford, Breann M., 2014. "Proleader and antitrailer information distortion and their effects on choice and postchoice memory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 134-150.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:662-677 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Seth A. Miller & Michael L. DeKay & Eric R. Stone & Clare M. Sorenson, 2013. "Assessing the sensitivity of information distortion to four potential influences in studies of risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(6), pages 662-677, November.
    5. Philipp Ecken & Richard Pibernik, 2016. "Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2002-2021, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mischkowski, Dorothee & Glöckner, Andreas & Lewisch, Peter, 2021. "Information search, coherence effects, and their interplay in legal decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:572-585 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Anne-Sophie Chaxel & J. Edward Russo & Neda Kerimi, 2013. "Preference-driven biases in decision makers' information search and evaluation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 561-576, September.
    4. DeKay, Michael L. & Miller, Seth A. & Schley, Dan R. & Erford, Breann M., 2014. "Proleader and antitrailer information distortion and their effects on choice and postchoice memory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 134-150.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:561-576 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:6:p:662-677 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Seth A. Miller & Michael L. DeKay & Eric R. Stone & Clare M. Sorenson, 2013. "Assessing the sensitivity of information distortion to four potential influences in studies of risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(6), pages 662-677, November.
    8. Martine Nurek & Olga Kostopoulou & York Hagmayer, 2014. "Predecisional information distortion in physicians' diagnostic judgments: Strengthening a leading hypothesis or weakening its competitor?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 572-585, November.
    9. Carlson, Kurt A. & Guha, Abhijit, 2011. "Leader-focused search: The impact of an emerging preference on information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 133-141, May.
    10. Bond, Samuel D. & Carlson, Kurt A. & Meloy, Margaret G. & Russo, J. Edward & Tanner, Robin J., 2007. "Information distortion in the evaluation of a single option," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 240-254, March.
    11. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    12. Gierl, Heribert & Stiegelmayr, Karin, 2012. "Erzeugt nicht-diagnostische Information einen Reihenfolge-Effekt im Fall der attributweisen Informationspräsentation?," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(2), pages 127-152.
    13. Olga Kostopoulou & Christos Mousoulis & Brendan Delaney, 2009. "Information search and information distortion in the diagnosis of an ambiguous presentation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 408-418, August.
    14. Carlson, Kurt A. & Pearo, Lisa Klein, 2004. "Limiting predecisional distortion by prior valuation of attribute components," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 48-59, May.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:408-418 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. DeKay, Michael L. & Patiño-Echeverri, Dalia & Fischbeck, Paul S., 2009. "Distortion of probability and outcome information in risky decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 79-92, May.
    17. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    18. Stephanie M Carpenter & J Frank Yates & Stephanie D Preston & Lydia Chen, 2016. "Regulating Emotions during Difficult Multiattribute Decision Making: The Role of Pre-Decisional Coherence Shifting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Chaxel, Anne-Sophie & Wiggins, Catherine & Xie, Jieru, 2018. "The impact of a limited time perspective on information distortion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 35-46.
    20. Svenson, Ola, 2011. "Biased decisions concerning productivity increase options," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 440-445, June.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:397-407 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:35-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    24. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:711-721 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Mitchell J. Small & Ümit Güvenç & Michael L. DeKay, 2014. "When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(11), pages 1978-1994, November.
    26. Ola Svenson & Ilkka Salo & Torun Lindholm, 2009. "Post-decision consolidation and distortion of facts," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 397-407, August.
    27. Andreas Glöckner & Christoph Engel, 2013. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 230-252, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:162:y:2011:i:1:p:132-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jeconom .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.