IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v3y2006i3p121-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From the Special Issue Editors... Special Issue on Psychology and Decision Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Don N. Kleinmuntz

    (Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089)

  • George Wu

    (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

Abstract

Decision analysis and the psychology of judgment and decision making are two distinct fields linked by common foundations and overlapping communities of researchers. Progress in psychological science is important to decision analysis because it provides insights about when decision analysis is likely to be needed as well as the practical problems we may encounter in implementing analytic processes in real world settings. This special issue includes four contributions to the psychology of decision making that are relevant to prescriptive decision analysis. The first article proposes a theoretical account of when choice heuristics are likely to perform well (or not) relative to normative benchmarks. The second contribution examines how decision makers aggregate multiple sources of information. The third article reports a survey study of real-world risk-taking behavior, and the fourth article investigates the sensitivity of probability assessments to time horizons.

Suggested Citation

  • Don N. Kleinmuntz & George Wu, 2006. "From the Special Issue Editors... Special Issue on Psychology and Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 121-123, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:3:y:2006:i:3:p:121-123
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.1060.0076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1060.0076
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.1060.0076?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
    2. John C. Hershey & Howard C. Kunreuther & Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 1982. "Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(8), pages 936-954, August.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Robin Gregory & Baruch Fischhoff & Tim McDaniels, 2005. "Acceptable Input: Using Decision Analysis to Guide Public Policy Deliberations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 4-16, March.
    5. Carl S. Spetzler & Carl-Axel S. Staël Von Holstein, 1975. "Exceptional Paper--Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 340-358, November.
    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. L. Robin Keller, 2009. "From the Editor..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 121-123, September.

    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. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    2. Lévesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2002. "Intuitive optimizing for time allocation decisions in newly formed ventures," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,24, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    3. Levesque, Moren & Schade, Christian, 2005. "Intuitive optimizing: experimental findings on time allocation decisions with newly formed ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 313-342, May.
    4. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    5. Kavitha Ranganathan, 2018. "Does Global Shapes Of Utility Functions Matter For Investment Decisions?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 341-361, October.
    6. Ferdinand Vieider, 2016. "Certainty Preference, Random Choice, and Loss Aversion: A Comment on "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan"," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2016-06, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    7. Christopher Schwand & Rudolf Vetschera & Lea Wakolbinger, 2010. "The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 395-416, September.
    8. Birgit Löhndorf & Anna-Lena Sachs & Rudolf Vetschera, 2014. "Stability of probability effects in utility elicitation," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 22(4), pages 755-777, December.
    9. Colson, Gérard, 1993. "Prenons-nous assez de risque dans les théories du risque?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(1), pages 111-141, mars.
    10. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    11. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    12. Alexander Harin, 2024. "About a “Certain-uncertain†Inconsistency within the Generally Accepted Experimental Procedures of Behavioral Economics," International Journal of Economics and Financial Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 10(2), pages 17-30, 06-2024.
    13. Yuval Rottenstreich & Alex Markle & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2023. "Risky Sure Things," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4707-4720, August.
    14. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. Karine Darjinoff & Francois Pannequin, 2000. "Demande d'assurance : Faut-il abandonner le critère de l'espérance d'utilité ?," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla00004, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    16. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Bleichrodt, Han, 2007. "Eliciting Gul's theory of disappointment aversion by the tradeoff method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 631-645, December.
    17. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    18. Connor, Robert A., 1996. "More than risk reduction: The investment appeal of insurance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-54, February.
    19. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    20. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.

    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:inm:ordeca:v:3:y:2006:i:3:p:121-123. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.