ArticlePsychological review2017
Noisy preferences in risky choice: A cautionary note.
Article in Psychological review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discourse on measurement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Empirical underidentification in estimating random utility models: The role of choice sets and standardizations.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2022Article
- Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys.Journal of risk and uncertainty · 2022Article
- How conformity can lead to polarised social behaviour.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Trust me; I know what I am doing investigating the effect of choice list elicitation and domain-relevant training on preference reversals in decision making for others.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Article
- Precise/not precise (PNP): A Brunswikian model that uses judgment error distributions to identify cognitive processes.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Review
- Optimal utility and probability functions for agents with finite computational precision.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments.Psychological review · 2020Article
- Good things come to those who wait-Decreasing impatience for health gains and losses.PloS one · 2020Article
- A QALY loss is a QALY loss is a QALY loss: a note on independence of loss aversion from health states.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We examine the effects of multiple sources of noise in risky decision making. Noise in the parameters that characterize an individual's preferences can combine with noise in the response process to distort observed choice proportions. Thus, underlying preferences that conform to expected value maximization can appear to show systematic risk aversion or risk seeking. Similarly, core preferences that are consistent with expected utility theory, when perturbed by such noise, can appear to display nonlinear probability weighting. For this reason, modal choices cannot be used simplistically to infer underlying preferences. Quantitative model fits that do not allow for both sorts of noise can lead to wrong conclusions. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.