• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk
【24h】

An Empirical Test of the Relative Validity of Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk

机译：专家判断和风险判断的相对有效性的实证检验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This article investigates how accurately experts (underwriters) and lay persons (university students) judge the risks posed by life-threatening events. Only one prior study (Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1985) has previously investigated the veracity of expert versus lay judgments of the magnitude of risk. In that study, a heterogeneous grouping of 15 experts was found to judge, using marginal estimations, a variety of risks as closer to the true annual frequencies of death than convenience samples of the lay population. In this study, we use a larger, homogenous sample of experts performing an ecologically valid task. We also ask our respondents to assess frequencies and relative frequencies directly, rather than ask for a "risk" estimate―a response mode subject to possible qualitative attributions―as was done in the Slovic et al. study. Although we find that the experts outperformed lay persons on a number of measures, the differences are small, and both groups showed similar global biases in terms of: (1) overestimating the likelihood of dying from a condition (marginal probability) and of dying from a condition given that it happens to you (conditional probability), and (2) underestimating the ratios of marginal and conditional likelihoods between pairs of potentially lethal events. In spite of these scaling problems, both groups showed quite good performance in ordering the lethal events in terms of marginal and conditional likelihoods. We discuss the nature of expertise using a framework developed by Bolger and Wright (1994), and consider whether the commonsense assumption of the superiority of expert risk assessors in making magnitude judgments of risk is, in fact, sensible.
机译：本文研究专家（承销商）和非专业人士（大学学生）如何正确判断威胁生命的事件所带来的风险。以前只有一项研究（Slovic，Fischhoff和Lichtenstein，1985年）曾经研究过专家对风险大小的判断的准确性。在该研究中，发现由15名专家组成的异类小组使用边际估计来判断各种风险，这些风险比外行人口的便利样本更接近真实的年度死亡频率。在这项研究中，我们使用较大，同质的专家样本来执行生态上有效的任务。我们还要求我们的受访者直接评估频率和相对频率，而不是像Slovic等人所做的那样要求“风险”估计（一种可能受到定性归因的响应模式）。研究。尽管我们发现专家在许多方面的表现均优于非专业人士，但差异很小，并且两组在以下方面均表现出相似的总体偏差：（1）高估了因某种状况而死亡的可能性（边际概率）和因某种原因而死亡的可能性。给定它发生在您身上的条件（条件概率），以及（2）低估了成对潜在致命事件之间的边际和条件似然比。尽管存在这些缩放问题，但两组在按边际可能性和条件可能性排序致命事件方面仍表现出良好的性能。我们使用Bolger和Wright（1994）开发的框架讨论专业知识的性质，并考虑专家风险评估者在做出风险量级判断方面的优势的常识性假设是否实际上是明智的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号