Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value

This research investigated the relationship between the magnitude or scope of a stimulus and its subjective value by contrasting 2 psychological processes that may be used to construct preferences: valuation by feeling and valuation by calculation. The results show that when people rely on feeling, they are sensitive to the presence or absence of a stimulus (i.e., the difference between 0 and some scope) but are largely insensitive to further variations of scope. In contrast, when people rely on calculation, they reveal relatively more constant sensitivity to scope. Thus, value is nearly a step function of scope when feeling predominates and is closer to a linear function when calculation predominates. These findings may allow for a novel interpretation of why most real-world value functions are concave and how the processes responsible for nonlinearity of value may also contribute to nonlinear probability weighting.

[1]  R. Schubert,et al.  What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function? , 2006 .

[2]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Distinction Bias: Misprediction and Mischoice Due to Joint Evaluation , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[4]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[5]  E. Brandstätter,et al.  A cognitive‐emotional account of the shape of the probability weighting function , 2002 .

[6]  S. Frederick.  Heuristics and Biases: Automated Choice Heuristics , 2002 .

[7]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk , 2001, Psychological science.

[8]  Martin Weber,et al.  What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty? , 1998, Manag. Sci..

[9]  J. L. Pinto,et al.  A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis , 2000 .

[10]  M. Abdellaoui.  Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions , 2000 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[12]  R. Dhar,et al.  Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods , 2000 .

[13]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[14]  Ilana Ritov,et al.  Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues , 1999 .

[15]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .

[16]  George Wu,et al.  Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty , 1999 .

[17]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[19]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Scope (in)sensitivity in elicited valuations , 1998 .

[20]  Cass R. Sunstein,et al.  Assessing Punitive Damages (with Notes on Cognition and Valuation in Law) , 1998 .

[21]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Common Consequence Conditions in Decision Making under Risk , 1998 .

[22]  Cass R. Sunstein,et al.  Assessing Punitive Damages... , 1997 .

[23]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing , 1997 .

[24]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function , 1996 .

[25]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives , 1996 .

[26]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Determinants of insensitivity to quantity in valuation of public goods: Contribution, warm glow, budget constraints, availability, and prominence , 1996 .

[27]  S. Sloman.  The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[28]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Communication Effects of Advertising versus Direct Experience When both Search and Experience Attributes Are Present , 1995 .

[29]  S. Epstein.  Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. , 1994, The American psychologist.

[30]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability , 1994 .

[31]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  An Investigation of Part-Whole Biases in Contingent-Valuation Studies , 1993 .

[32]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies , 1993 .

[33]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and Reliability , 1993 .

[34]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[35]  N. Sanders,et al.  Journal of behavioral decision making: "The need for contextual and technical knowledge in judgmental forecasting", 5 (1992) 39-52 , 1992 .

[36]  J. Elster,et al.  Choice Over Time , 1992 .

[37]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[38]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction , 1992 .

[39]  J. Elster,et al.  Utility from memory and anticipation. , 1992 .

[40]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. , 1988 .

[41]  R. Zajonc.  Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[42]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .