Advertisement

Improving Individual, Group, and Organizational Decisions: Overcoming Learning Aversion in Evaluating and Managing Uncertain Risks

  • Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
  • Douglas A. Popken
  • Richard X. Sun
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 270)

Abstract

The descriptive, causal, predictive, and evaluation analytics illustrated in Chaps.  3 11 are largely about risk assessment. That is, they are about quantifying how large risks are now; predicting how much smaller they would become if costly interventions were undertaken (e.g., shifting pigs from closed to open production or further reducing air pollution levels); and evaluating how effective past interventions have been and how well current systems that help to monitor and control potential risks are performing. Such analytics help to inform decision-makers about current risks and the probable effectiveness and tradeoffs among objectives created by proposed risk management actions. This chapter and those that follow turn to prescriptive risk management issues: deciding what to do next and learning how to better achieve desired goals. This chapter reviews principles of benefit-cost analysis and practical psychological pitfalls that make it difficult for individuals, groups, and organizations to learn optimally from experience. It proposes possible ways to overcome these obstacles, drawing on insights from learning analytics and adaptive optimization from Chap.  2. Chapter  13 offers advice on how to help move organizations toward effective risk management practices by recognizing and rejecting common excuses that inhibit excellent collective risk management decision-making and by taking advantage of opportunities to learn and collaborate in sensing, interpreting, and responding to warning signs. Chapter  14 considers how regulatory and judicial institutions can work together to promote improved societal risk management and to advance the public interest by assuring that sound causal analytics, manipulative causation, and valid causal inferences, are made the basis for regulatory interventions. Chapter  15, which concludes this book, brings together and extends these prescriptive threads by considering philosophical, game-theoretic, and economic models for how to make risk management decisions with consequences that span multiple generations.

References

  1. Al-Najjar NI, Weinstein J (2009) The ambiguity aversion literature: a critical assessment. Econ Philos 25(Special Issue 03):249–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariely D (2009) Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. Revised and expanded edition. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Fitzgerald G, Putt M, Ubel PA (2002) Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med Decis Mak 22(1):76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell DE (1985) Putting a premium on regret. Manag Sci 31(1):117–120.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.1.117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett R, Blaney RJP (2002) Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue. J Econ Psychol 23(4):501–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourgeois-Gironde S (2010) Regret and the rationality of choices. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 365(1538):249–257.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casey JT, Delquie P (1995) Stated vs. implicit willingness to pay under risk. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 61(2):123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Champ PA, Bishop RC (2006) Is willingness to pay for a public good sensitive to the elicitation format? Land Econ 82(2):162–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang YC (2007) No regrets about no-regret. Artif Intell 171:434–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clancy L, Goodman P, Sinclair H, Dockery DW (2002) Effect of air-pollution control on death rates in Dublin, Ireland: an intervention study. Lancet 360(9341):1210–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox LA Jr (2012) Reassessing the human health benefits from cleaner air. Risk Anal 32(5):816–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dean M, Ortoleva P (2012) Estimating the relationship between economic preferences: a testing ground for unified theories of behavior. Working Paper, Department of Economics. Brown University. Providence, RI. http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Mark_Dean/papers.shtml. Last Retrieved 1 February 2014
  13. DECLG Department of the Environment Community and Local Government, March 9, 2012. New Smoky Coal Ban Regulations will bring Cleaner Air, Fewer Deaths and can help efficiency. http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Atmosphere/AirQuality/SmokyCoalBan/News/MainBody,31034,en.htm. Last Retrieved 1 February 2014
  14. Delquié P, Cillo A (2006) Disappointment without prior expectation: a unifying perspective on decision under risk. J Risk Uncertain 33(3):197–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-006-0499-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Magazin A, Schroen AT, Soares H, Hozo I, Clarke M, Sargent D, Schell MJ (2011) Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results-an empirical study. J Clin Epidemiol 64(6):583–593.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EPA (2011a) The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020: summary report. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/aug10/summaryreport.pdf Google Scholar
  17. EPA (2011b) The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Full report. U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf Google Scholar
  18. Epper T, Fehr-Duda H (2014) The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting. www.thomasepper.com/papers/RaT2.pdf. Last Retrieved 9 February 2018
  19. Feldman AM (2004) Kaldor-Hicks compensation. In Newman P (ed), The new Palgrave Dictionary of economics and the law, vol 2, E-O. Macmillan, London, pp 417–412Google Scholar
  20. Gan HK, You B, Pond GR, Chen EX (2012) Assumptions of expected benefits in randomized phase III trials evaluating systemic treatments for cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 104(8):590–598.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djs141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner D (2009) The science of fear: how the culture of fear manipulates your brain. Penguin Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Gelfand S (2013) Clinical equipoise: actual or hypothetical disagreement? J Med Philos 38(6):590–604.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jht023. Epub 2013 Jul 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1989) Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. J Math Econ 18:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodman SN (2001) Of P-values and Bayes: a modest proposal. Epidemiology 12(3):295–297. No abstract availableCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graham DA (1981) Cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty. Am Econ Rev 71(4):715–725. http://www.nber.org/papers/w0194.pdf?new_window=1. Last Retrieved 1 February 2014Google Scholar
  26. Grossman PZ, Cearley RW, Cole DH (2006) Uncertainty, insurance, and the Learned Hand formula. Law Probab Risk 5(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harford T (2011) Adapt: why success always starts with failure. Farra, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Hart A (2005) Adaptive heuristics. Econometrica 73(5):1401–1430. http://www.math.huji.ac.il/~hart/papers/heurist.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harvard School of Public Health (2002) Press Release: “Ban On Coal Burning in Dublin Cleans the Air and Reduces Death Rates”. www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/archives/2002-releases/press10172002.html
  30. Hazan E, Kale S (2007) Computational equivalence of fixed points and no regret algorithms, and convergence to equilibria. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 20:625–632Google Scholar
  31. Health Effects Institute (HEI) (2013) Did the Irish coal bans improve air quality and health? HEI Update, Summer, 2013. http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=929. Last Retrieved 1 Feb 2014
  32. Hershey JC, Kunreuther HC, Schoemaker PJH (1982) Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Manag Sci 28(8):936–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoy M, Peter R, Richter A (2014) Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertain 48(2):111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hylland A, Zeckhauser RJ (1979) The impossibility of Bayesian Group decision making with separate aggregation of beliefs and values. Econometrica 47(6):1321–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8):e124.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jaksch T, Ortner R, Auer P (2010) Near-optimal regret bounds for reinforcement learning. J Mach Learn Res 11:1563–1600Google Scholar
  37. Josephs RA, Larrick RP, Steele CM, Nisbett RE (1992) Protecting the self from the negative consequences of risky decisions. J Pers Soc Psychol 62(1):26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahneman D, Frederick S (2005) A model of heuristic judgment. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG (eds) The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 267–293Google Scholar
  40. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Stud Manage Sci 12:313–327Google Scholar
  41. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values and frames. Am Psychol 39:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect 5(1):193–206. Winter 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keren G, Gerritsen LEM (1999) On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychol 103(1–2):0149–0172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kralik JD, Xu ER, Knight EJ, Khan SA, Levine WJ (2012) When less is more: evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic. PLoS One 7(10):e46240.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lehrer J. Trials and errors: why science is failing us. Wired. January 28, 2012. http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/02/features/trials-and-errors?page=all
  46. Li J, Daw ND (2011) Signals in human striatum are appropriate for policy update rather than value prediction. J Neurosci 31(14):5504–5511.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6316-10.2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 92(368):805–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Louis P (2009) Learning aversion and voting rules in collective decision making, mimeo, Universitat Autonoma de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  49. Maccheronia F, Marinacci M, Rustichini A (2006) Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica 74(6):1447–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Man PTY, Takayama S (2013) A unifying impossibility theorem. Economic Theory 54(2):249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matheny ME, Normand SL, Gross TP, Marinac-Dabic D, Loyo-Berrios N, Vidi VD, Donnelly S, Resnic FS (2011) Evaluation of an automated safety surveillance system using risk adjusted sequential probability ratio testing. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 11:75.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-11-75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mueller DC (2003) Public Choice III. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Navarro AD, Fantino E (2005) The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. J Exp Anal Behav 83(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nehring K (2007) The impossibility of a Paretian Rational: a Bayesian perspective. Econ Lett 96(1):45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Newby-Clark IR, Ross M, Buehler R, Koehler DJ, Griffin D (2000) People focus on optimistic scenarios and disregard pessimistic scenarios while predicting task completion times. J Exp Psychol Appl 6(3):171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nuzzo R (2014) Scientific method: statistical errors. P values, the ‘gold standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature 506:150–152.  https://doi.org/10.1038/506150a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Othman A, Sandholm T (2009) How pervasive is the Myerson-Satterthwaite impossibility? In: Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI'09. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco, CA, pp 233–238Google Scholar
  58. Pelucchi C, Negri E, Gallus S, Boffetta P, Tramacere I, La Vecchia C (2009) Long-term particulate matter exposure and mortality: a review of European epidemiological studies. BMC Public Health. 9:453Google Scholar
  59. Pham MT, Avnet T (2008) Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 108:267–278. http://www.columbiaedu/~tdp4/OBHDP2009pdf. Last Retrieved 14 Feb 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Politi MC, Clark MA, Ombao H, Dizon D, Elwyn G (2011) Communicating uncertainty can lead to less decision satisfaction: a necessary cost of involving patients in shared decision making? Health Expect 14(1):84–91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00626.x. Epub 2010 Sep 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Portney PR (2008) Benefit-cost analysis. In: Henderson DR (ed) The concise encyclopedia of economics. Library of Economics and Liberty. Last Retrieved 1 February 2014. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BenefitCostAnalysis.html
  62. Poundstone W (2010) Priceless: the myth of fair value (and how to take advantage of it). Scribe Publications, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  63. Prelec D, Loewenstein GF (1991) Decision making over time and under uncertainty: a common approach. Manag Sci 37(7):770–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Robards M, Sunehag P (2011) Near-optimal on-policy control. Paper presented at the 9th European workshop on reinforcement learning, 9–11 Sept. Athens, Greece. https://ewrl.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ewrl2011_submission_5.pdf. (Last downloaded 5-10-18)
  65. Rothman KJ (1990) No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1:43–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Russo JE, Schoemaker PJH (1989) Decision traps: ten barriers to brilliant decision-making and how to overcome them. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Russo JE, Schoemaker PJH (1992) Managing overconfidence. Winter. Sloan Manag Rev 33(2):7–17Google Scholar
  68. Saito K (2011a) A relationship between risk and time preferences. http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~saito/papers/Saito2011Allais.pdf
  69. Saito K (2011b) Strotz meets Allais: diminishing impatience and the certainty effect: comment. Am Econ Rev 101(5):2271–2275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sarewitz D (2012) Beware the creeping cracks of bias. Nature 485:149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schönberg T, Daw ND, Joel D, O'Doherty JP (2007) Reinforcement learning signals in the human striatum distinguish learners from nonlearners during reward-based decision making. J Neurosci 27(47):12860–12867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2002) Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. J Socioecon 31(4):329–342Google Scholar
  73. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor D (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith JE, von Winterfeldt D (2004) Decision analysis in “Management Science”. Manag Sci 50(5):561–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stokey NL (2009) The economics of inaction: stochastic control models with fixed costs. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  76. Sunstein C (2005) Moral heuristics. Behav Brain Sci 28:531–573Google Scholar
  77. Thaler RH (1999) Mental accounting matters. J Behav Decis Mak 12:183–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tversky A, Thaler RH (1990) Anomalies: preference reversals. J Econ Perspect 4(2):201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wittmaack K (2007) The big ban on bituminous coal sales revisited: serious epidemics and pronounced trends feign excess mortality previously attributed to heavy black-smoke exposure. Inhal Toxicol 19(4):343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Yu JY, Mannor S, Shimkin N (2009) Markov decision processes with arbitrary reward processes. Math Oper Res 34(3):737–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
    • 1
  • Douglas A. Popken
    • 2
  • Richard X. Sun
    • 3
  1. 1.Cox AssociatesDenverUSA
  2. 2.Cox AssociatesLittletonUSA
  3. 3.Cox AssociatesEast BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations