Talk:Neglect of probability
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neglect of probability article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hsee example needs reworking badly
[edit]"In another example of near-total neglect of probability , Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) found that the typical subject was willing to pay $7 to avoid a 1% chance of a painful electric shock, and $10 - only a little more - to avoid a 99% chance of the same shock. (They suggest that probability is more likely to be neglected when the outcomes are emotion arousing.)" As currently written, this seems to be a "duh" response. If someone is willing to pay $7 to avoid a 1% chance, paying less than $693 to avoid a 99% chance is a bargain. Perhaps this needs to be rephrased, but the current way it's phrased only proves that people are willing to pay less than the maximum amount they'd accept... a trivial principle of economics Eoseth (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I took a stab at this by changing the order of the sentence. Paying $10 for 99% and $7 for only 1% is an egregious violation of the same economic principle (paying $7 when it should be only worth about $0.10). I am not sure if this properly represents the study, though, so it might need another look. Primalmoon (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Studies/Children
[edit]The Children section offers what appears to be a quote without a citation. This is followed by what appear to be additional quotes without citations mixed with conclusions that possibly aren't quotes. Gab4gab (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)