Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Causal Analytics for Applied Risk Analysis

Abstract

The descriptive, causal, predictive, and evaluation analytics illustrated in Chaps. 311 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Al-Najjar NI, Weinstein J (2009) The ambiguity aversion literature: a critical assessment. Econ Philos 25(Special Issue 03):249–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D (2009) Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. Revised and expanded edition. HarperCollins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):76–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell DE (1985) Putting a premium on regret. Manag Sci 31(1):117–120. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.1.117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):501–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey JT, Delquie P (1995) Stated vs. implicit willingness to pay under risk. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 61(2):123–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champ PA, Bishop RC (2006) Is willingness to pay for a public good sensitive to the elicitation format? Land Econ 82(2):162–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang YC (2007) No regrets about no-regret. Artif Intell 171:434–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1210–1214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox LA Jr (2012) Reassessing the human health benefits from cleaner air. Risk Anal 32(5):816–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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 417–412

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner D (2009) The science of fear: how the culture of fear manipulates your brain. Penguin Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1989) Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior. J Math Econ 18:141–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman SN (2001) Of P-values and Bayes: a modest proposal. Epidemiology 12(3):295–297. No abstract available

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman PZ, Cearley RW, Cole DH (2006) Uncertainty, insurance, and the Learned Hand formula. Law Probab Risk 5(1):1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harford T (2011) Adapt: why success always starts with failure. Farra, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart A (2005) Adaptive heuristics. Econometrica 73(5):1401–1430. http://www.math.huji.ac.il/~hart/papers/heurist.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Hazan E, Kale S (2007) Computational equivalence of fixed points and no regret algorithms, and convergence to equilibria. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 20:625–632

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Hershey JC, Kunreuther HC, Schoemaker PJH (1982) Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Manag Sci 28(8):936–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoy M, Peter R, Richter A (2014) Take-up for genetic tests and ambiguity. J Risk Uncertain 48(2):111–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hylland A, Zeckhauser RJ (1979) The impossibility of Bayesian Group decision making with separate aggregation of beliefs and values. Econometrica 47(6):1321–1336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8):e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaksch T, Ortner R, Auer P (2010) Near-optimal regret bounds for reinforcement learning. J Mach Learn Res 11:1563–1600

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):26–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 267–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Stud Manage Sci 12:313–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values and frames. Am Psychol 39:341–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keren G, Gerritsen LEM (1999) On the robustness and possible accounts of ambiguity aversion. Acta Psychol 103(1–2):0149–0172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econ J 92(368):805–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis P (2009) Learning aversion and voting rules in collective decision making, mimeo, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccheronia F, Marinacci M, Rustichini A (2006) Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica 74(6):1447–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Man PTY, Takayama S (2013) A unifying impossibility theorem. Economic Theory 54(2):249–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller DC (2003) Public Choice III. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Navarro AD, Fantino E (2005) The sunk cost effect in pigeons and humans. J Exp Anal Behav 83(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehring K (2007) The impossibility of a Paretian Rational: a Bayesian perspective. Econ Lett 96(1):45–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):171–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 233–238

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 9:453

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Poundstone W (2010) Priceless: the myth of fair value (and how to take advantage of it). Scribe Publications, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelec D, Loewenstein GF (1991) Decision making over time and under uncertainty: a common approach. Manag Sci 37(7):770–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Rothman KJ (1990) No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1:43–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo JE, Schoemaker PJH (1989) Decision traps: ten barriers to brilliant decision-making and how to overcome them. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo JE, Schoemaker PJH (1992) Managing overconfidence. Winter. Sloan Manag Rev 33(2):7–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito K (2011a) A relationship between risk and time preferences. http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~saito/papers/Saito2011Allais.pdf

  • Saito K (2011b) Strotz meets Allais: diminishing impatience and the certainty effect: comment. Am Econ Rev 101(5):2271–2275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D (2012) Beware the creeping cracks of bias. Nature 485:149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):12860–12867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):329–342

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JE, von Winterfeldt D (2004) Decision analysis in “Management Science”. Manag Sci 50(5):561–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokey NL (2009) The economics of inaction: stochastic control models with fixed costs. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C (2005) Moral heuristics. Behav Brain Sci 28:531–573

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler RH (1999) Mental accounting matters. J Behav Decis Mak 12:183–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Thaler RH (1990) Anomalies: preference reversals. J Econ Perspect 4(2):201–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):343–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu JY, Mannor S, Shimkin N (2009) Markov decision processes with arbitrary reward processes. Math Oper Res 34(3):737–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Cox Jr., L.A., Popken, D.A., Sun, R.X. (2018). Improving Individual, Group, and Organizational Decisions: Overcoming Learning Aversion in Evaluating and Managing Uncertain Risks. In: Causal Analytics for Applied Risk Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 270. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78242-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics