Joseph L Arvai
Biographic Data
| ID | 11077467 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Joseph L Arvai |
| GIVEN NAMES | Joseph L |
| FAMILY NAME | Arvai |
| SIGNATURE | ARVAI J L |
| AFFILIATIONS | Michigan State University |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 3 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 18 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 3 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2005 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2019 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
Do people disagree with themselves? Exploring the internal consistency of complex, unfamiliar, and risky decisions
It is commonly accepted that people disagree with one another. In this article, we present results that suggest people may disagree with themselves. Using eight decision-making contexts ranging in familiarity, complexity, and risk, we show that a nationally representative sample (n = 1874) of respondents made choices that were inconsistent across two complimentary methods of eliciting preferences. We show that on average individuals demonstrate h…
Good decisions, bad decisions
Process‐based considerations are generally accepted by experts and analysts as being the fundamental drivers of decision quality. However, little work has been done to account for the role of a risk management decision’s outcome as a key driver of the public judgments about decision quality. To this end, the objective of the research reported here was straightforward to determine – via an experiment – the relative importance of decision‐making pr…
When Less is More
Recent research involving the evaluability hypothesis has focused on how the presentation of hard to evaluate or easy to evaluate attributes influences preferences for options in either separate or joint evaluations. One explanation for the weight that an attribute carries during a decision is related to the ease with which the value of that attribute can be mapped into an affective frame of reference. In other words, affect helps a decision make…
Good decisions, bad decisions
Process‐based considerations are generally accepted by experts and analysts as being the fundamental drivers of decision quality. However, little work has been done to account for the role of a risk management decision’s outcome as a key driver of the public judgments about decision quality. To this end, the objective of the research reported here was straightforward to determine – via an experiment – the relative importance of decision‐making pr…
When Less is More
Recent research involving the evaluability hypothesis has focused on how the presentation of hard to evaluate or easy to evaluate attributes influences preferences for options in either separate or joint evaluations. One explanation for the weight that an attribute carries during a decision is related to the ease with which the value of that attribute can be mapped into an affective frame of reference. In other words, affect helps a decision make…
Do people disagree with themselves? Exploring the internal consistency of complex, unfamiliar, and risky decisions
It is commonly accepted that people disagree with one another. In this article, we present results that suggest people may disagree with themselves. Using eight decision-making contexts ranging in familiarity, complexity, and risk, we show that a nationally representative sample (n = 1874) of respondents made choices that were inconsistent across two complimentary methods of eliciting preferences. We show that on average individuals demonstrate h…
When Less is More
Recent research involving the evaluability hypothesis has focused on how the presentation of hard to evaluate or easy to evaluate attributes influences preferences for options in either separate or joint evaluations. One explanation for the weight that an attribute carries during a decision is related to the ease with which the value of that attribute can be mapped into an affective frame of reference. In other words, affect helps a decision make…
Good decisions, bad decisions
Process‐based considerations are generally accepted by experts and analysts as being the fundamental drivers of decision quality. However, little work has been done to account for the role of a risk management decision’s outcome as a key driver of the public judgments about decision quality. To this end, the objective of the research reported here was straightforward to determine – via an experiment – the relative importance of decision‐making pr…
Do people disagree with themselves? Exploring the internal consistency of complex, unfamiliar, and risky decisions
It is commonly accepted that people disagree with one another. In this article, we present results that suggest people may disagree with themselves. Using eight decision-making contexts ranging in familiarity, complexity, and risk, we show that a nationally representative sample (n = 1874) of respondents made choices that were inconsistent across two complimentary methods of eliciting preferences. We show that on average individuals demonstrate h…
Computer Science (3 works) · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics (3 works) · Psychology (3 works) · Behavioral Health and Interventions (2 works) · Cognitive psychology (2 works) · Economics (2 works) · Heuristics (2 works) · Microeconomics (2 works) · Social Psychology (2 works) · Social Psychology (2 works)