Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1981): "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science, 211, 453--458.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... and Amos Tversky, amongst others, have investigated the probability reasoning of laypeople (i.e. those who are not probability theorists or statisticians, but who might be aware of probability calculations, such as students) One experiment asked practicing physicians to answer the following [TK81]: 1. Imagine that the United States is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. 128 If program B is adopted, ....

Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211:453-458, 1981.

....by the superior colliculus that allow it to trigger saccadic eye movements [2] The above examples do not prove that humans and animals are optimal Bayesian ma chines. In many tasks optimal decision making is biased by different psychological factors which might fall outside such a framework ([69] see [38] for a review) For example, it has been shown that the illusion to control the outcome of a choice task leads to an increase in the subjective estimate of the probability of success as compared to its objective probabil ity [17] In another set of experiments it was shown that humans ....

A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481):453-8, 1981.

.... operations research [Hillier Lieberman 1990] and decision theory [Keeney Rai#a 1976] We note in passing that there are intriguing generalizations of von Neuman Morgenstern utility to nonlinear, nontransitive forms which may be more in keeping with psychological observation of human behavior [Tversky Kahneman 1981], but further discussion of the utility theoretical aspects of this work is beyond the scope of this paper. 3.3 Issues Client preferences are represented by issues, which are expressed by design participants prior to beginning the actual design process. An issue consists of a set of parameters, ....

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1981. "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science 211, 453-58.

....by Kahneman and Tversky (for example, see Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky [1982] has been especially influential. It points to numerous shortcomings in the way forecasters use judgment. Sometimes, however, these shortcomings are caused by the questions posed to the forecaster being poorly worded [Tversky and Kahneman 1981; Kruglanski, Friedland, and Farkash 1984] Some skeptics suggest that psychologists have developed techniques for writing questions that will trick subjects. Expert opinion is useful in estimating current status, although the direct evidence for this point is sparse. Experts in the subject area ....

Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel 1981, "The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice," Science, Vol. 211, No. 4481, pp. 453-458.

....and labor unions #Schuman and Ludwig 1983#. The conventional explanation of question order e#ects is framing, which suggests that individual responses to questions are in#uenced by the concepts or beliefs activated within a question or across a series of questions #Kahneman and Tversky 1984; Tversky and Kahneman 1981#. Several di#erent phenomena in survey responses are attributed to framing e#ects. First, the wording of alternatives in a survey can change dramatically an individual s choice from those alternatives. A widely cited example originates from a pair of questions posed by Kahneman and Tversky #1984; ....

....Several di#erent phenomena in survey responses are attributed to framing e#ects. First, the wording of alternatives in a survey can change dramatically an individual s choice from those alternatives. A widely cited example originates from a pair of questions posed by Kahneman and Tversky #1984; Tversky and Kahneman 1981#, in which people are asked to choose between two inoculation plans to prevent the spread of a deadly disease in a society of 600 people. When respondents are told that Plan A will save 400 people with certainty while Plan B will save no one with a 1 3 probability and everyone with a 2 3 ....

Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. #The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice." Science 211:453-8.

....a single consistent set of rules is applied across data to arrive at the conclusions. Although this is still the folk psychological understanding of at least declarative knowledge and reasoning, it has been well established that human decision making is not necessarily logically consistent (e.g. Tversky Kahneman 1981, Bacharach Hurley 1991) nor do we apply the same computational skills and strategies in different situations (Cosmides Tooby 1992) Even such apparently logic based abilities as transitive inference have been demonstrated to be not high level abstract thought but basically a robust ....

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981), `The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice', Science 211, 453--58.

....role in seemingly riskless situations whenever it is clear that the individual s choice determinants have changed in a way that was unpredictable. A careful scrutiny of the formulation of two characteristic problems may best convey the intuition of the argument. The first question was asked by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) : 2 Imagine that you are about to purchase a jacket for ( 125) 15] and a calculator for ( 15) 125] The calculator salesman informs you that the calculator you wish to buy is on sale for ( 10) 120] at the other branch of the store, a 20 minute drive away. Would you make the trip to the ....

....the wealth effect is small too. The price effect is a function of the relative price rebate. Therefore, the smaller is the calculator s price, the nicer is the surprise, and the more subjects are inclined to make the trip for a given prior. The theoretical prediction conforms to the results from Tversky and Kahneman (1981), also presented by Thaler (1994 ; 13 15) 3.2. Sunk costs Fixed, historical, and other sunk costs should not influence current decisions according to the conventional wisdom: bygones are forever bygones. However, Tversky and Kahneman (1981) report two experiments (see also Thaler 1994 ; 149) ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman (1981). "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice", Science 211: 453-458.

....treatments (including no treatment) are significant decision variables in people s preferred management choices. The framing of risk is an important decision factor in evaluating potential losses: Choices involving gains are often risk averse and choices involving losses are often risk taking (Tversky and Kahneman 1981: 453) Regardless of a person s shared interest with a particular stakeholder group, the core of one s position on CROP stand treatments is centered on minimizing losses. For some stakeholders, the potential losses correspond to reductions in the naturalness of the forest or ecosystem, preempted ....

Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science. 211: 453-458.

....execute her rational actions. While the concept of rationality as the behavior that maximizes the expected utility of action is purely normative, it also provides a good guidance to the majority of actually observed human behavior. As experimentally verified in various settings (see for example Tversky and Kahneman (1981), Busemeyer and Townsend (1993) humans do end up choosing among their alternative actions with probabilities that reflect the expected utilities of these alternatives in the normative sense. Thus, alternatives that have significantly higher expected utility than their next competitors are almost ....

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 453--458.

....in more detail. As the utility function of a loss averse investor is nonconcave and nondi erentiable the traditional stochastic dynamic programming approach and its associated Hamilton Jacobi Bellman (HJB) equation cannot be utilized to derive the optimal portfolio. We shall apply the martin 4 Kahneman Tversky (1981) stressed that the behavior captured by loss aversion only applies to one shot gambles. Optimal Portfolio Choice Under Loss Aversion 8 gale methodology to reduce the dynamic portfolio problem to an equivalent static optimization problem. The martingale methodology was independently developed by ....

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1981), `The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice', Science 211, 453-458.

....support for health care and these characteristics. Furthermore, in Paragraph 2 we discussed the different motives people may have to support solidaristic welfare state arrangements. We also slightly touched upon the notion that the strength of a certain motive is dependent upon framing (Tversky Kahneman, 1981, 1984; Lindenberg, 1989) Framing is the process through which the situation is defined in a person s mind, that is the information is coded and evaluated in a certain way. As a consequence of this particular way of looking at the situation, one particular motive may become more salient and ....

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

....Making People make different decisions and choices depending on the particular context, e.g. it is more likely for someone to buy a quite expensive banana if it is surrounded by even more expensive but worse bananas or if he she has just decided that pleasure is more important than money. Tversky and Kahneman (1981) have demonstrated shifts of preferences and choice when the same problem is framed in different ways, and Tversky (1969) has obtained results demonstrating the non transitivity of human judgments for preference. These results can be explained in terms of differences in the internal or external ....

Tversky, A.. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, vol. 211, pp. 453-458.

....value function in the domain of gains and convexity in the domain of losses) implies that people behave risk seekingly in the domain of losses and risk aversly in the domain of gains (Kahneman Tversky, 1979, p. 278) 1 Framing effects such as observed in the famous Asian disease experiment (Tversky Kahneman, 1981) which has been replicated several times (see, for example, Bohm Lind, 1992) can easily be explained by means of the reflection effect. Furthermore, prospect theory s value function is steeper for losses (outcomes below the reference point) than for gains (outcomes above the reference point) ....

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1981): "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice", Science 211, 453--458.

....saved to lives lost significantly alters choice. The conclusion of 17 Kahneman and Tversky is that humans think differently about gains and losses from the status quo, and if one frames a decision task in a way that alters the perceived status quo, then one can alter choice behavior; see also Tversky Kahneman (1981) and Sonnemans, Schram, Offerman (1994) Context refers more generally to the current and historical setting in which a choice is offered. For example, Simonson Tversky (1992) report an experiment involving microwave brands A and B, and a more expensive model A# of brand A. They found that ....

Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. (1981) "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science 211, 453-458.

....correct, and the decisions made using it need not necessarily represent the decisions that the decision maker would like to make. Numerous studies have been performed validating the fact that the acquired preference model does not necessarily represent the true preferences of the decision maker [23, 24, 32, 40, 55, 71, 72]. Recently, researchers have developed novel preference acquisition techniques for some classes of decision support systems which elicit more accurate preference models [18] Compared to knowledge acquisition, fewer researchers are working on preference acquisition. Thus there are many classes of ....

Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211:453--458, 1981.

No context found.

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1981): "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science, 211, 453--458.

No context found.

Z. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. 1981 . "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science 211, 453#458.

No context found.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453-458

No context found.

Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. #The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice." Science 211:453-8.

No context found.

-1131. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1981). "The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice." Science 211(4481):

No context found.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211 (4481), 453--458.

No context found.

Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky, $The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,# Science, CCXI (1981), 453-58.

No context found.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211 (4481), 453--458.

No context found.

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science 211, 453-458.

No context found.

Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. (1981) "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice," Science 211, 453-458.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC