IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v68y1996i3p301-317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relative Importance of Probabilities, Outcomes, and Vagueness in Hazard Risk Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Kuhn, Kristine M.
  • Budescu, David V.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuhn, Kristine M. & Budescu, David V., 1996. "The Relative Importance of Probabilities, Outcomes, and Vagueness in Hazard Risk Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 301-317, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:68:y:1996:i:3:p:301-317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(96)90107-7
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Christoph Huber & Julia Rose, 2019. "Do individual attitudes towards imprecision survive in experimental asset markets?," Working Papers 2019-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    2. David V. Budescu & Ning Du, 2007. "Coherence and Consistency of Investors' Probability Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1731-1744, November.
    3. Morone, Andrea & Ozdemir, Ozlem, 2012. "Black swan protection: an experimental investigation," MPRA Paper 38842, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Joanna Ho & L. Keller & Pamela Keltyka, 2005. "How Do Information Ambiguity and Timing of Contextual Information Affect Managers’ Goal Congruence in Making Investment Decisions in Good Times vs. Bad Times?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 163-186, September.
    5. Rowe, Stephen P., 2019. "Auditors’ comfort with uncertain estimates: More evidence is not always better," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Wang, Mei & Fischbeck, Paul, 2004. "Evaluating lotteries, risks, and risk mitigation programs : a comparison of China and the United States," Papers 04-13, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    7. Ning Du & David V. Budescu, 2005. "The Effects of Imprecise Probabilities and Outcomes in Evaluating Investment Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1791-1803, December.
    8. Zbozinek, Tomislav Damir & Charpentier, Caroline Juliette & Qi, Song & mobbs, dean, 2021. "Ambiguous Outcome Magnitude in Economic Decision Making with Low and High Monetary Stakes," OSF Preprints 5q4g7, Center for Open Science.
    9. Ozlem Ozdemir, 2007. "Valuation of Self-Insurance and Self-Protection under Ambiguity: Experimental Evidence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-034, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    10. Cerroni, Simone & Notaro, Sandra & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2013. "How many bad apples are in a bunch? An experimental investigation of perceived pesticide residue risks," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 112-123.
    11. Ozlem Ozdemir & Andrea Morone, 2014. "An experimental investigation of insurance decisions in low probability and high loss risk situations," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 9(1), pages 53-67, April.
    12. Divya Aggarwal & Pitabas Mohanty, 2022. "Influence of imprecise information on risk and ambiguity preferences: Experimental evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(4), pages 1025-1038, June.
    13. Budescu, David V. & Kuhn, Kristine M. & Kramer, Karen M. & Johnson, Timothy R., 2002. "Modeling certainty equivalents for imprecise gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 748-768, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jobhdp:v:68:y:1996:i:3:p:301-317. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/obhdp .

    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.