Aiding Decision Making In Uncertain Environments: Problems And Prescriptions

References

• M. Alpert and H. Raiffa, “A progre.s.s report on the training cif probaliility assessors,” unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, 1969
   Google Scholar
• M. Bar-Hillei, “On the subjective probability of compound events,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, June 1973, .396–405
   Google Scholar
• I. Benbasat and R. Schroeder, “An exptniniental investigation of some M.I..S. design variables,” Mts Quarterly, 1. 1977, 37–49
   Google Scholar
• E. Borgida and R.E. Nisbett, “The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 1977, 258–71
   Google Scholar
• J.S. Bruner and L.J. Postman, “On the perception of incongruity: a paradigm,” Journalof Personality, 18, 1949, 206–23
   Google Scholar
• D.T. Campbell, “Reforms as experiments,” American Psychologist, 24, 1969,409–29
   Google Scholar
• C.W. Churchman, The Design cf Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organizations. New York: Basic Books, 1971
   Google Scholar
• J. Cohen and E.I. Ghesnick, “The doctrine of psychological chances,” British Journal of Psychology, 61, Aug. 1970, 323–4
   Google Scholar
• J. Cohen, E.I. Chesnick, and 1). Haren, “Evaluation of compound probabilitie.s in sequential choice,” Nature, 232, August 1971, 414–6
   Google Scholar
• J. Cohen, E.I. Chesnick, and D. Haran, “A confirmation of the inertial-ψ effect in sequential choice and decision,” British Journal of Psychology, 63, Eeb. 1972, 41–6
   Google Scholar
• J. Cohen and C.G.M. Hansel, “The idea of independence,” British Journal of Psychology, 46, Aug. 1955, 178–90
   Google Scholar
• J.C. Corless, “Assessing Prior Distributions for Applying Bayesiaii Statistics in Auditing,” The Accounting Review, July, 1972, 556–66
   Google Scholar
• M.A. Crosby, “Bayesian statistics in auditing: a comparison of probability elicitalion techniques,” The Accounting Review, April 1981, 355–65
   Google Scholar
• R.M. Cyerl, W.R. Dill, and J.G. March, “The role of expectations in business decision making,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 1958, 307–40
   Google Scholar
• N.C. Dalkey, An Elementary Cross-Impact Model. RAND Report R-677-ARPA, May 1971
   Google Scholar
• E.E. David, “One-armed scientists?” Science, 189, 1975, 891
   Google Scholar
• D.C. Dearborn and H.A. Simon, “Selective perception: a note on the deparlmeiital identification of executives,” Socionietry, 21: 2, 1958, 140–44
   Google Scholar
• W. Edwards, “(Conservatism in human information processing,” in B. Kleinmuntz (ed.), Formal Represeritati.on of Human judgmeriL New York: Wiley, 1968, 17–52.
   Google Scholar
• H. Einhorn and R. Hogarth, “Confidence in judgment: persistence of the illusion of validity,” Psychological Review, 1978, 395–416
   Google Scholar
• W.L. Felix, Jr, “Evidence on alternative means of assessing prior Probability distribution for audit decision making,” The Accounting Review, Oct. 1976, 800–807
   Google Scholar
• B. Eischhoff and M. Bar-Hillei, “Diagnosticity and the base-rate effect,” Working Paper, Decision Research, a Branch of Perceptronics, Eugene, Oregon, Oct. 1981
   Google Scholar
• B. Eischhoff and R. Beyth, “I knew it would happen: remembered probabilities of once-future things,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 1975, 1–16
   Google Scholar
• T.P. Gerrity, “Design of man machine systems: an application to portfolio management,” Sloan Management Review, 12, 1971, 59–75
   Google Scholar
• T. Gordon and H. Haywood, “Initial experiments with the cross-impact method of forecasting,” Futures, 1: 2, 1968
   Google Scholar
• T.J. Gordon, R. Rochberg, and S. Enzer, “Research on cross-impact techniques with applications to selected problems in economics, political science and technology assessment,” Institute for the Future. R-12, Aug. 1970
   Google Scholar
• R.M. Hogarth, “Process tracing in clinical judgment,” Behavioral Science, 19, Sept. 1974, 298–313
   Google Scholar
• R.M. Hogarth, “Cognitive processes and the assessment of subjective prtubability distributions,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, June 1975, 271–89
   Google Scholar
• D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “Piospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk,” Econometrica, 47, 1979, 263–91
   Google Scholar
• D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “On the psychology of prediction.” Psychological Review, 80, 1973, 237–51
   Google Scholar
• D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness,” Cognitive Psychology, 3, 1972, 430–54
   Google Scholar
• K. Eewin, Tlie Corncepiual Representation and Measurement of Psychalogical Forces Durham, Nc: Duke University Press, 1938
   Google Scholar
• S. Lichtenstein and J.R. Newman, “Empirical scaling of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities,” Psychonomic Science, 9, 1967, 563–4
   Google Scholar
• S. Lichtenstein and B. Fischhoff, “Do those who know more also know rriore about how much they know?” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 1977, 159–83
   Google Scholar
• S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff, and L.D. Phillips, “Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980,” in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Catnibridge University Press, 1982
   Google Scholar
• H.C. Lucas and N.B. Nielsen, “The impact ofthe mode of information presentation on learning and performance,” Managenient Science, 26, 1980, 982–93
   Google Scholar
• D. Lyon and P. Slovic, “Dominance of accuracy information and neglect of base rates in probability estimation,” Acta Psychologica, 46, 1976, 287–98
   Google Scholar
• R.O. Mason, “A dialectical approach to strategic planning,” Management Science, 15, 1969, B403-B414
   Google Scholar
• L Mitroff and J. Emshoff, “On strategic assumption-making: a dialectical approach to policy and planning,” Academy of Management Review, 4, 1979, 1–12
   Google Scholar
• H. Morlock, “The effect of outconje desirability on information required for decisions,” Behavioral Science, 12: 4, 1967, 296–300
   Google Scholar
• H. Moskowitz and J. Wallenius, “Conditional versus joint probability assessments,” INFOR, 22:2, 1984, 116–39 ;
   Google Scholar
• H. Moskowitz and K.K. Sarin, “Improving conditional probability assessments for long range forecasting and decision making,” Management Science (forthcoming) 1984
   Google Scholar
• CR. Peterson, L.J. Vlehla, A J. Miller L.E. Bourne Jr, and D.W. Stilson, “Internal consistency of subjective probabilities,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19–5, 1970,526–33
   Google Scholar
• R. Rochberg, T.J. Gordon, and O. Helmer, “The use of cross-impact matrices for forecasting and planning,” Institute for the Future, R-10, April 1970
   Google Scholar
• A.P. Sage, and E.B. White, “Methodologies for risk and hazard assessnient - a survey and status report,” I.E.E.E. Systems, Mass and Cybernetics, SMC-10, 1980, 425–46
   Google Scholar
• F. Sanders, “Skill in forecasting daily teipperature and precipitation: soriie experimental results,” Bulletin ofthe American Meteorological Society, 54, 1973,11171–9
   Google Scholar
• L.J. Savage, Elicjtation of personal priobabilities and expectations,” journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 1971, 783–801
   Google Scholar
• R.E. Schaefer and K. Borcherding, “Thfe assessment of subjective probability distributions: a training experiment,” Acta Psychologica, 37, April 1973, 117–119
   Google Scholar
• D.A. Seaver, D. von Winterfeldt, and W. Edwards, “Eliciting subjective probability distributions on continuous variables,” Prganiiational Behavior and HJuman Performance, 21, 1978, 379–91
   Google Scholar
• P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, “Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 1971, 649–744
   Google Scholar
• E.L. Thorndike, The Psychology ofLearriing. New York: New York Teachers College, 1914 :
   Google Scholar
• Murray Turoff, “An Alternative Approach to Cross-Impact Analysis,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 3: 3, 1972
   Google Scholar
• A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice,”Science, 211, 1981,453–8 ;
   Google Scholar
• A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment under uncertainty, heuristic and biases,” Science, 185, 1974, 1124–31
   Google Scholar
• A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability,” Cognitive Psychology, 5, 1973, 207–32
   Google Scholar
• A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “The belief in the ‘Law of Small Numbers,’“ Psychological Bulletin, 76, 1971, 105–10
   Google Scholar
• B.J. Underwood, “Interference and forgetting,” Psychologicat Review, 64, 1957
   Google Scholar
• I. Vertinsky and E. Wong, “Eliciting preferences and the construction of indifferencemaps: a comparative empirical evaluation of two measurement methodologies,” Socio-Economic Planning, 9, 1975, 15–24
   Google Scholar
• W.A. Wagenaar, “Appreciation of conditional probabilities in binary sequences,” Acta Psychologica, 34, Dec. 1970, 348–56
   Google Scholar
• P.C. Watson, “On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 1960, 231–41
   Google Scholar
• R.L. Winkler, “The assessment of prior distributions in Bayesian analysis,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, Sept. 1967, 776–800
   Google Scholar
• R.L. Winkler and A.H. Murphy, “'Good' probability assessors,” Journal of Applied Meteorology, 7, Oct. 1968, 751–8
   Google Scholar
• R.S. Wyer, Jr, “An investigation of the relations among probability estimates,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15: 1, 1976, 1–18
   Google Scholar