Abstract
This paper reviews the state of the art of research on individual decision-making in high-stakes, low-probability settings. A central theme is that resolving high-stakes decisions optimally poses a formidable challenge not only to naïve decision makers, but also to users of more sophisticated tools, such as decision analysis. Such decisions are difficult to make because precise information about probabilities is not available, and the dynamics of the decision are complex. When faced with such problems, naïve decision-makers fall prey to a wide range of potentially harmful biases, such as failing to recognize a high-stakes problem, ignoring the information about probabilities that does exist, and responding to complexity by accepting the status quo. A proposed agenda for future research focuses on how the process and outcomes of high-stakes decision making might be improved.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ben Zur, H., and S. J. Breznitz. (1981). ''The Effect of Time Pressure on Risky Choice Behavior,'' Acta Psychologica, 47, 89–104.
Fong, Geoffrey T., David H. Krantz, and Richard E. Nisbett. (1986). ''The Effects of Statistical Training on Thinking About Everyday Problems,'' Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 253–292.
Hammond, K. (2000). Judgments Under Stress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hausman, J. (1979). ''Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Saving Durables,'' Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 33–45.
Hogarth, R., C. Michaud, and J.-L. Mery. (1980). ''Decision Behavior in Urban Development: A Methodological Approach and Substantive Considerations,'' Acta Psychologica, 45, 95–117.
Hsee, C. (1996). ''The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation of Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,'' Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 247–257.
Huber, O., R. Wider, and O. Huber. (1997). ''Active Information Search and Complete Information Presentation in Naturalistic Risky Decision Tasks,'' Acta Psychologica, 95, 15–29.
Johnson, E., J. Hershey, J. Meszaros, and H. Kunreuther. (1993). ''Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions,'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.
Kahn, B. E., and J. Baron. (1995). ''An Exploratory Study of Choice Rules Favored for High Stakes Decisions,'' Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 305–328.
Kahn, B. E., and M. F. Luce. (2001). ''Modeling High Stakes Consumer Decisions in Repeated Contexts: The Problem of Mammography Adherence Following False Alarm Test Results,'' The Wharton School Marketing Department Working Paper Series.
Kunreuther, H., A. Onculer, and P. Slovic. (1998). ''Time Insensitivity for Protective Measures,'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 279–299.
Kunreuther, H., et al. (1978). Disaster Insurance Protection: Public Policy Lessons. New York: Wiley.
Levi, A., and P. E. Tetlock. (1980). ''A Cognitive Analysis of Japan's 1941 Decision for War,'' Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 195–211.
Loewenstein, G., E. Weber, C. Hsee, and E. Welch. (2001). ''Risk as Feelings,'' Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.
Luce, M. F., J. R. Bettman, and J. W. Payne. (1997). ''Choice Processing in Emotionally Difficult Decisions,'' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 384–405.
Luce, M. F., and B. Kahn. (1999). ''Avoidance or Vigilance? The Psychology of False-Positive Test Results,'' Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 242–259.
McClelland, G., and W. Schulze, and D. Coursey. (1993). ''Insurance for Low-Probability Hazards: A Bimodal Response to Unlikely Events,'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 95–116.
Meyer, R., and W. Hutchinson. (2001). ''Bumbling Geniuses: The Power of Everyday Reasoning in Multistage Decision Making.'' In Wharton on Making Decisions, S. Hoch and H. Kunreuther (eds.), New York: John Wiley.
Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1998). ''Learning to Bear the Unbearable: Towards an Explanation of Risk Ignorance,'' Mimeo, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Payne, J.W., J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson. (1988). ''Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making,'' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534–552.
Samuelson, W., and R. Zeckhauser. (1988). ''Status Quo Bias in Decision Making,'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.
Schade, C., and H. Kunreuther. (2001). ''Worry and the Illusion of Safety,'' Working Paper, Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Schwartz, B., A. Ward, J. Monterosso, S. Lyubomirsky, K. White, and D. R. Lehman. (2002). Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice. Manuscript under review.
Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. MacGregor. (2001). ''The Affect Heuristic.'' In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (eds.), Intuitive Judgment: Heuristics and Biases, Editors, Cambridge University Press, in press.
Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. (1978). ''Accident Probabilities and Seat Belt Usage: A Psychological Perspective,'' Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10, 281–285.
Slovic, P., J. Monahan, and D. G. MacGregor. (2000). ''Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Communication: The Effects of Using Actual Cases, Providing Instruction, and Employing Probability Versus Frequency Formats,'' Law and Human Behavior.
Sunstein, C. (1996). ''Social Norms and Social Roles,'' Columbia Law Review, 96, 903–968.
Weinstein, N., K. Kolb, and B. Goldstein. (1996). ''Using Time intervals Between Expected Events to Communicate Risk Magnitudes,'' Risk Analysis, 16, 305–308.
Zeckhauser, Richard J., and W. Kip Viscusi. (1990). ''Risk Within Reason,'' Science, 248, 559–564.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kunreuther, H., Meyer, R., Zeckhauser, R. et al. High Stakes Decision Making: Normative, Descriptive and Prescriptive Considerations. Marketing Letters 13, 259–268 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020287225409
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020287225409