The influence of a decision support tool on real estate valuations

References

• Cheng, P., Lin, Z., & Liu, Y. (2011). Heterogeneous information and appraisal smoothing. Journal of Real Estate Research, 33, 443–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clayton, J., Geltner, D., & Hamilton, S. W. (2001). Smoothing in commercial property valuations: Evidence from individual appraisals. Real Estate Economics, 29, 337–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conlisk, J. (1996). Bounded rationality and market fluctuations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 29, 233–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz, J., III (1990a). How appraisers do their work: A test of the appraisal process and the development of a descriptive model. Journal of Real Estate Research, 5(1), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz, J., III (1990b). The process of selecting comparable sales. Appraisal Journal, 58, 533–540.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz, J., III (1997). An investigation into the impact of previous expert value estimates on appraisal judgment. Journal of Real Estate Research, 13, 57–66.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz, J., III, Gallimore, P., & Levy, D. (2004). Multicultural examination of valuation behaviour. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 22, 339–346.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz, J., III, & Hansz, A. A. (1997). How valuers use the value opinions of others. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 15, 256–260.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz, J., III, & Hansz, A. A. (2001). The use of reference points in valuation judgment. Journal of Property Research, 18, 141–148.
   Google Scholar
• Diaz, J., III, & Wolverton, M. L. (1998). A longitudinal examination of the appraisal smoothing hypothesis. Real Estate Economics, 26, 349–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, W., & Fasolo, B. (2001). Decision technology. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 581–606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T. (1989). Some causes of bias in expert opinion. The Psychologist, 2, 112–113.
   Google Scholar
• Gallimore, P. (1994). Aspects of information processing in valuation judgement and choice. Journal of Property Research, 11, 97–110.
   Google Scholar
• Geltner, D. (1989). Bias in appraisal-based returns. Real Estate Economics, 17, 338–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In D. Koehler, & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgement and decision making (pp. 62–88). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansz, J. A. (2004). The use of a pending mortgage reference point in valuation judgment. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 22, 259–268.
   Google Scholar
• Havard, T. M. (2001). An experimental evaluation of the effect of data presentation on heuristic bias in commercial valuation. Journal of Property Research, 18, 51–67.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Science, 31, 395–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Schkade, D. A. (1993). Information displays and decision processes. Psychological Science, 4, 221–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larrick, R. (2004). Debiasing. In D. Koehler, & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgement and decision making (pp. 316–338). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, D., & Schuck, E. (1999). The influence of clients on valuations. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 17, 380–400.
   Google Scholar
• Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382–402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Schkade, D. A. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 243–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quan, D. C., & Quigley, J. M. (1989). Inferring an investment return series for real estate from observations on sales. Journal of the American Real Estate & Urban Economics Association, 17, 218–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quan, D. C., & Quigley, J. M. (1991). Price formation and the appraisal function in real estate markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance & Economics, 4, 127–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schkade, D. A., & Kleinmuntz, D. N. (1994). Information displays and choice processes: Differential effects of organization, form, and sequence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 319–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, P. J., & Lizieri, C. (2012). House price judgements: New evidence of anchoring and arbitrary coherence. Journal of Property Research, 29, 49–68.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, D. P. (1978). Information processing theory of human problem solving. In D. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive process (pp. 271–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . Vol. 5.
   Google Scholar
• Slovic, P. (1972). From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculation – and some evidence – about man’s ability to process information. Oregon Research Institute Bulletin, 12, 1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 23, 86–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1991). An experimental investigation of the impact of computer based decision aids on decision making strategies. Information Systems Research, 2, 87–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1992). The use of information in decision making: An experimental investigation of the impact of computer-based decision aids. MIS Quarterly, 16, 373–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1994a). The influence of decision aids on choice strategies: An experimental analysis of the role of cognitive effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 36–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todd, P. A., & Benbasat, I. (1994b). The influence of decision aids on choice strategies under conditions of high cognitive load. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics, 24, 537–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1999). Evaluating the impact of DSS, cognitive effort, and incentives on strategy selection. Information Systems Research, 10, 356–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Inducing compensatory information processing through decision aids that facilitate effort reduction: An experimental assessment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 91–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar