How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk¶
Dillon, R. L., & Tinsley, C. H. (2008). How Near-Misses Influence Decision Making Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning. Management Science, 54(8), 1425-1440.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Counterfactual Proximity Weighting
- The partial-reward reading belongs to the gambling bullet above it; it does not survive the transfer. Driving and piloting: a near-collision recalibrates risk perception disproportionate to the objective hazard density, because the proximity-weighted near-loss signal drives attention recalibration.
This sourceEstablishes the cross-domain 'near-miss bias': across project management, insurance/hazard, and gambling settings, near-misses are evaluated as successes and lower perceived (not statistical) risk, driving riskier subsequent decisions — the shared mechanism across substrates. (Note: this shows the recalibration runs toward complacency, contra the prose's claim of heightened risk perception — see flag on 906.)
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract backs a near-miss decoupling felt risk from statistical risk, but not the attention-recalibration mechanism or the driving/piloting setting.
“We distinguish perceived (“felt”) risk from calculated statistical risk and propose that lower levels of perceived risk encourage people with near-miss information to make riskier subsequent decisions compared to people without near-miss information.”
- The partial-reward reading belongs to the gambling bullet above it; it does not survive the transfer. Driving and piloting: a near-collision recalibrates risk perception disproportionate to the objective hazard density, because the proximity-weighted near-loss signal drives attention recalibration.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:16cc1cc6a268 · see in the full table