网范文：“Risk-Specific Search for Risk-Defusing Operators ” 风险化解行为是由决策者在高风险的情况下，当他们寻找额外的操作,降低风险和允许他们支持一个风险的选择。这篇金融范文讲述了风险化解行为。探讨表明,风险化解行为取决于类型的风险，英语论文网站，以及范围(健康、经济或生态)。使用一定的技术来进行信息搜索和思考,我们对决策过程进行了调查。结果表明,积极寻找不同的风险化解中间人，取决于不同类型的风险。结果表明需要进一步探讨类型风险的,除了正式的分类标准,内容也在积极探究。
想象暴风雨即将来临。你必须决定是否离开你的家推，英语论文题目，你会留下你所有的物品吗?先前的探讨在这一领域集中在概率的风险结果,另一种措施探讨决定在真实的环境中。当工作在真实的环境,被问及他们会采取额外的行动,可以减少甚至消除潜在风险。下面的范文进行详述。
Atract
Active risk-defusing behavior is that performed by decision makers in risky situations when they look for additional actions that decrease the risk and allow them to favor a riskier alternative. Our study demonstrates that risk-defusing behavior depends on the type of risk (normal, medium, catastrophic, or global) as well as on the domain (health, economy, or ecology). In total, 12 scenarios (four types of risk from three risk domains each) were constructed. Using the interview techniques of active information search and thinking aloud, we conducted 120 interviews about decision-making processes with these scenarios. The results showed that active search for different risk-defusing operators depends on the type of risk, but even more on the domain of the scenario. Results suggest a need for further research about a typology of risk situations in which, besides formal classification criteria, content issues are also explored.
Keywords: risk, catastrophe, risk-defusing behavior, decision making, content effects
Itroduction
Imagine that you are a citizen of New Orleans and the storm is approaching. You have to decide whether or not to leave your home as recommended by the mayor. Would you leave all your belongings behind? Your furniture? Your new business? Would you use statistics to inform yourself about the probability of the total destruction of dams and the flooding of the city? Would you think about how you have previously decided in risky situations? Or would you start thinking about how to reduce the potential damage, maybe by installing additional security devices, like sealing the doors and windows or getting hold of emergency power supplies? Psychological research on decision making under uncertainty looks for answers to these and related questions.
Whereas previous research in this domain concentrated on probabilities of risky outcomes in lottery-type decisions (Jungermann, Pfister, & Fischer, 2017), an alternative approach studies decisions in quasi-realistic settings (e.g., Huber, 2017). When working on quasi-realistic decision problems, subjects are not interested in event probabilities, but asked about additional actions they would take that could reduce the potential risk or even eliminate it.
Final Reflections
The combination of C-AIS, the thinking-aloud method, and a post-decision interview was chosen to collect a broad spectrum of verbal data. The comparison of the mean number of questions posed and statements made shows that nearly half of the verbal information collected came from thinking aloud. Therefore, this method can be seen as an important source of information and as a useful addition to the AIS. Especially the new category “attitudes/rules/plans” seems to play an important role in the context of global risks. Further research using this multi-method approach seems worth the high investment of time, which is needed for transcription. The results of the present study do not reveal whether a specific type of risk would allow the prediction of RDO variance. Because risk domain and the specific combination of domain and type are influential as well, it seems more promising to construct an even more detailed typology including formal and content criteria that could explain variations in decision-making behavior.
This is not an argument against a formalization of risks, but it points to the importance of a detailed analysis of risk situations. This is in accordance with the naturalistic approach to decision making in which concrete situations, partly single case studies, are the focus of the research. Some researchers (e.g., Brase, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1998; Cosmides & Tooby, 1987; Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 1996) assume that humans’ cognitive machinery has had to adapt to many different situations during evolution; therefore, no one general, but many problem-specific, adaptive processing mechanisms have developed. It follows that only a detailed model, which integrates many problem- and situation-specific aspects, can map real decision problems. It remains open whether further factors beyond the ones analyzed here (type of risk, risk domain, and the interaction of the two) affect the preferences for certain RDOs. So the scope of the RDO concept must be more clearly defined.
The intention of our study was to appraise non-experts’ assessment of risks and to investigate how critical aspects of risks can be reduced. For all types of risk, the decision makers tried to precisely explore the situation and the potential negative consequences. These components seem to be an important condition for evaluating and planning. Sufficient information could mean a safety for the further handling of risks. If an RDO is supposed to reduce negative consequences, then these consequences have to be investigated closely. For practical purposes, this means that the opportunity of the risk can be used by adequate strategies as far as a priori calculations are possible. There is evidence that the frequency with which the more risky alternative is selected decreases from normal to medium to catastrophic to global type of risks, whereas the amount of detailed information about consequences decreases, too, due to increasing complexity. Well-founded education about risk-taking should be supported and put in place specifically for global risks with long-term effects.
There seems to be a high need for information because non-experts fall back on existing and less well-founded attitudes (e.g., “I have preferred organic products for years, so I would never support genetically altered food”). Under the condition of sufficient information, active risk-defusing could be supported accurately. The generally preferred strategy (within all four types of risk) of new alternatives shows that it could make more sense to look for new ways – even for risks that are extremely threatening – than to restrict the damage afterwards or before (participants often suggested the search for “something else,” e.g., another kind of rubbish dump, another kind of stock). In addition, detailed and comprehensive worst-case plans should be available for catastrophes (e.g., participants intensively explored information about the side effects of medicine).
Participants showed a good feeling for situations in which preventive strategies could not guarantee risk reduction but where, instead, compensation strategies were helpful. As for global risks (characterized by long-term effects), participants proposed that time be used effectively to create controlling strategies until the triggering event occurs (e.g., they suggested that genetically modified food should be labeled). In this case, simulation studies referring to possibilities for control would be very useful for dealing with complexity and the long-term effects of such risks (participants requested simulation studies very often in the interviews). As an aim for upcoming research, such considerations could be investigated in detail to support efficient risk management.()
网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有；未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象，保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()
|
