IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v39y1995i3p561-583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Context, Methods, Numbers, And Words

Author

Listed:
  • William A. Boettcher III

    (Ohio State University)

Abstract

In this article, recent attempts to apply prospect theory to the study of international relations are reviewed and evaluated. The review of this literature leads to a number of theoretical and methodological critiques that are highlighted by an experiment that demonstrates the difficulties inherent in attempting to transport this theory across disciplinary boundaries. Of special importance is the introduction of verbal probability expressions into the experimental design. The results of the experiment provide some support for prospect theory, but differences in the results obtained for different verbal probability sets indicate that decision theorists need to be more concerned with the manner in which probabilistic information is conveyed to (and discussed by) decision makers.

Suggested Citation

  • William A. Boettcher III, 1995. "Context, Methods, Numbers, And Words," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(3), pages 561-583, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:39:y:1995:i:3:p:561-583
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002795039003008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002795039003008
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002795039003008?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. Taber, Charles S., 1992. "POLI: An Expert System Model of U.S. Foreign Policy Belief Systems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 888-904, December.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    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. Quattrone, George A. & Tversky, Amos, 1988. "Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 719-736, September.
    5. Budescu, David V. & Wallsten, Thomas S., 1990. "Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 240-263, August.
    6. Brun, Wibecke & Teigen, Karl Halvor, 1988. "Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 390-404, June.
    7. Erev, Ido & Cohen, Brent L., 1990. "Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Kameda, Tatsuya & Davis, James H., 1990. "The function of the reference point in individual and group risk decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 55-76, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    2. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
    3. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    4. Dhami, Sanjit & Al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2010. "Optimal taxation in the presence of tax evasion: Expected utility versus prospect theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 313-337, August.
    5. Heribert Gierl & Hans Höser, 2002. "Der Reihenfolgeeffekt auf Präferenzen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 3-18, February.
    6. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    7. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Brun, Wibecke, 1999. "The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 155-190, November.
    8. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    9. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    10. Huizingh, Eelko K. R. E. & Vrolijk, Hans C. J., 1997. "A Comparison of Verbal and Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 237-247, June.
    11. Marielle Brunette, 2012. "Do risk communication methods perform to generate rationality?," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2012-01, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    12. Floris Heukelom, 2007. "Who are the Behavioral Economists and what do they say?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 07-020/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Joyita Banerji & Kaushik Kundu & Parveen Ahmed Alam, 2023. "The Impact of Behavioral Biases on Individuals’ Financial Choices under Uncertainty: An Empirical Approach," Business Perspectives and Research, , vol. 11(3), pages 401-424, September.
    14. Rindone, Fabio & Greco, Salvatore & Di Gaetano, Luigi, 2013. "On prospects and games: an equilibrium analysis under prospect theory," MPRA Paper 52131, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Jih-Jeng Huang & Masahiro Inuiguchi, 2015. "Diminishing Utility Decision Model for Weighting Criteria," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1263-1284, November.
    16. Herrmann, Oliver & Jong-A-Pin, Richard & Schoonbeek, Lambert, 2019. "A prospect-theory model of voter turnout," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 362-373.
    17. Rose McDermott, 2001. "The Psychological Ideas of Amos Tversky and Their Relevance for Political Science," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 13(1), pages 5-33, January.
    18. Hong Chao & Chun-Yu Ho & Xiangdong Qin, 2017. "Risk taking after absolute and relative wealth changes: The role of reference point adaptation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 157-186, April.
    19. Sergio Almeida & Mauro Rodrigues, 2021. "Of two minds: An experiment on how time scarcity shapes risk-taking behavior," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2021_18, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    20. Pavlo Blavatskyy & Valentyn Panchenko & Andreas Ortmann, 2023. "How common is the common-ratio effect?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 253-272, April.

    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:sae:jocore:v:39:y:1995:i:3:p:561-583. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.