Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- 12 Human Mental Processes for Perception, Memory, and Decision Making
- 13 Risk Perception and Risk Ranking
- 14 Risk Communication1
- 15 Organizational Behavior and Decision Making
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- Book part
- Index
- References
12 - Human Mental Processes for Perception, Memory, and Decision Making
from Part III - How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2017
Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- 12 Human Mental Processes for Perception, Memory, and Decision Making
- 13 Risk Perception and Risk Ranking
- 14 Risk Communication1
- 15 Organizational Behavior and Decision Making
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Theory and Practice in Policy AnalysisIncluding Applications in Science and Technology, pp. 345 - 372Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Bracken, P. (1977). “Unintended Consequences of Strategic Gaming,” Simulation and Gaming, 8, pp. 283–318.Google Scholar
Bracken, P. (1990). “Gaming in Hierarchical Defense Organizations,” in Goldberg, A.C., van Opstal, D., and Barkley, J.H. (eds.), Avoiding the Brink: Theory and Practice in Crisis Management, Brassey’s, 138pp.Google Scholar
Brewer, G.D. and Shubik, M. (1979). The War Game: A Critique of Military Problem Solving, Harvard University Press, 385pp.Google Scholar
Dawes, R.M. (1979). “The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making,” American psychologist, 34(7), pp. 571–582.Google Scholar
Dawes, R.M. (1988). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 346pp.Google Scholar
Dawes, R.M. (2002). “The Ethics of Using or Not Using Statistical Prediction Rules in Psychological Practice and Related Consulting Activities,” Philosophy of Science, 69(S3), S178–S184.Google Scholar
Dawes, R.M., Faust, D., and Meehl, P.E. (1989). “Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment,” Science, 243, pp. 1668–1674.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. (1975). “Hindsight ≠ Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment under Uncertainty,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, pp. 288–299.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. (2010). “Judgment and Decision Making,” WIREs Cognitive Science, 1(5), pp. 724–735.Google Scholar
Fox, C.R. and Birke, R. (2002). “Forecasting Trial Outcomes: Lawyers Assign Higher Probability to Possibilities That Are Described in Greater Detail,” Law and Human Behavior, 26, pp. 159–173.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.C., van Opstal, D., and Barkley, J.H. (eds.) (1990). Avoiding the Brink: Theory and Practice in Crisis Management, Brassey’s, 138pp.Google Scholar
Gregory, W.L. (2001). “Scenarios and Acceptance of Forecasts,” in Armstrong, J.S. (ed.), Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, Kluwer, 849pp.Google Scholar
Hastie, R. and Dawes, R.M. (2001). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, Sage, 372pp.Google Scholar
Hawkins, S.A. and Hastie, R. (1990). “Hindsight: Biased Judgments of Past Events after the Outcome Is Known,” Psychological Bulletin, 107, pp. 311–327.Google Scholar
Henrion, M. and Fischhoff, B. (1986). “Assessing Uncertainty in Physical Constants,” American Journal of Physics, 54(9), pp. 791–798.Google Scholar
Huber, J. and Puto, C. (1983). “Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1995). Climate Change 1995. Available at: www.ipcc.ch.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, 555pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1973). “On the Psychology of Prediction,” Psychological Review, 80, pp. 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, Value and Frames, Cambridge University Press, 840pp.Google Scholar
Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S.K., and An, S.G. (2012). “The Foreign Language Effect: Thinking in a Foreign Tongue Reduces Decision Biases,” Psychological Science, 23, pp. 661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., and Phillips, L.D. (1982). “Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art to 1980,” in Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, pp. 306–334.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., and Combs, B. (1978). “Judged Frequency of Lethal Events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(6), pp. 551–578.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G.F. (1996). “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K., and Welch, E.S. (2001). “Risk as Feelings,” Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), pp. 267–286.Google Scholar
McClintock, C.G. and McNeel, S.P. (1966). “Reward Level and Game Playing Behavior,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 10(1), pp. 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C.F. (2013). Public Policy in an Uncertain World: Analysis and Decisions, Harvard University Press, 199pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. with Dowlatabadi, H., Henrion, M., Keith, D., Lempert, R., McBride, S., Small, M., and Wilbanks, T. (2009). Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making, Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2, report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, 89pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. and Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 332pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. and Keith, D.W. (2008). “Improving the Way We Think about Projecting Future Energy Use and Emissions of Carbon Dioxide,” Climatic Change, 90, pp. 198–215.Google Scholar
Moss, R., Edmonds, J.A., Hibbard, K.A. et al. (2010). “The Next Generation of Scenarios for Climate Change Research and Assessment,” Nature, 463, pp. 747–756.Google Scholar
Nakićenović, N. and Swart, R. (2000). Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 599pp. Available at: www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=0.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977). “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes,” Psychological Review, 84, pp. 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation, Harvard University Press, 373pp.Google Scholar
Raiffa, H. with Richardson, J. and Metcalfe, D. (2002). Negotiation Analysis, Harvard University Press, 548pp.Google Scholar
Redelmeier, D.A., Koehler, D.J., Liberman, V., and Tversky, A. (1995). “Probability Judgment in Medicine: Discounting Unspecified Possibilities,” Medical Decision Making, 15, pp. 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T.C. (1978, 2006). Micromotives and Macro Behavior, W.W. Norton and Co., 252pp. in 1978, 270pp. in 2006.Google Scholar
Sjöberg, L. (2006). “Will the Real Meaning of Affect Please Stand up?” Journal of Risk Research, 9(2), pp. 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D.G. (2004). “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk and Rationality,” Risk Analysis, 24(2), pp. 311–322.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., and Lichtenstein, S. (1976). “Cognitive Processes and Societal Risk Taking,” in Carroll, J.S. and Payne, J.W. (eds.), Cognition and Social Behavior, Halsted Press Division of Wiley, pp. 7–36.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1972). “Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice,” Psychological Review, 79, pp. 281–299.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185(4157), pp. 1124–1131.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, 211, pp. 453–458.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). “Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment,” Psychological Review, 90, pp. 293–315.Google Scholar
van Vuuren, D.P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M. et al. (2011). “The Representative Concentration Pathways: An Overview,” Climatic Change, 109, pp. 5–31.Google Scholar
Wardman, J.K. (2006). “Toward a Critical Discourse on Affect and Risk Perception,” Journal of Risk Research, 9(2), pp. 109–124.Google Scholar