This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neglect of probability article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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 (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Hsee example needs reworking badly

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]