The “bomb” risk elicitation task

By Paolo Crosetto, Antonio Filippin. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2013

344 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/78ae7b115ae779dc269002dfaaa457f9a2f43156

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Isabel Thielmann
2. Benjamin E. Hilbig
3. Paolo Crosetto
4. Antonio Filippin

In General Decision Sciences

1. Benjamin E. Hilbig
2. Isabel Thielmann
3. Paolo Crosetto
4. Antonio Filippin

In Safety Research

1. Isabel Thielmann
2. Benjamin E. Hilbig
3. Paolo Crosetto
4. Antonio Filippin
5. Ingo Zettler

Citations in the corpus

• A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes (2016, neutral): “…outcome reporting bias is found in the HL replications, and the likely explanation for the low reporting rate is the fact that the task is performed only as a control, and therefore gender differences in risk preferences are of little interest to the authors (for details see Crosetto et al., 2013).”
• A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods (2013, positive): “BRET (identical to Crosetto and Filippin, 2013b) On the PC screen you will see a field composed of 100 numbered boxes.”
• Trust: An Integrative Review from a Person–Situation Perspective (2015, methodology): “…& Eysenck, 1978) as well as various behavioral measures such as the multiple price list method (Holt & Laury, 2002), the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002), the card gamble task (Eckel & Wilson, 2004), and the Bomb Risk Elicitation Task (BRET; Crosetto & Filippin, 2013).”