Emotive Decisions: An Analysis from the Prospect Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55414/pthf3c60Keywords:
Decision making, Emotional load, Gain/loss conditions, Prospective theoryAbstract
The objective of the present study was to verify if the effects of certainty and reflection proposed by the prospect theory remain equal by adding an affective load to the stimuli in risk situations. The hypotheses were that in both gain and loss situations, people will tend to choose the alternative rich in affect, regardless of whether it is a safe or probable option. The sample consisted of 320 psychology degree students, predominantly women, who were divided into groups of 40 people for each experimental condition. Everyone was given a problem with two response options to choose one of them. The statistical methods used were the Z Test for independent samples and the binomial test. The results obtained showed that there are no statistically significant differences when comparing the gain conditions between them, nor between the loss conditions, so that the hypotheses were confirmed since most of the participants opted for the option with affective load in all conditions, disappearing the effects of certainty and reflection proposed by the prospective theory.
Downloads
References
Bonavia, T. (2014). The Effect of the Emotive Decisions in Prospect Theory. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, E-99 [DOI: 10.1017/sjp.2014.104].
Bonavia, T. y Brox-Ponce, J. (2018). Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency. PLoS One, 13(2), e0191990 [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191990].
Brumagim, A.L. y Wu, X. (2005). An examination of cross-cultural differences in attitudes towards risk: Testing prospect theory in the people’s republic of China. Multinational Business Review, 13(3), 67-86 [DOI: 10.1108/1525383X200500015].
Burger, E. (2019). Canadian Consumers ́ Benefit and Risk Perception of Genetically Modified Food: The Role of Emotion, Information, and Risk Attitudes. Tesis de Máster en Ciencias de la Alimentación, Agricultura y Recursos Económicos. University of Guelph, Ontario, Canadá.
Dhar, R. y Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71 [DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718].
El Alabi, E. y Milanesi, G.S. (2015). Evolución de las funciones de utilidad para la toma de decisiones. Escritos Contables y de Administración, 6(1), 15-43.
Frank, R.H. (2009). Microeconomía y conducta. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
García-Garzón, E., Lecuona, O. y Carbajal, G.V. (2018). Estudios de replicación, pre-registros y ciencia abierta en Psicología. Apuntes de Psicología, 36(1-2), 75-83.
González, M. y Bonavia, T. (2014). ¿Decidimos racionalmente? Ciencia Cognitiva, 8(2), 40-42.
Hsee, C.K., Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U. y Welch, N. (2001). Risk as Feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286 [DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267].
Kahneman, D. y Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291 [DOI: 10.2307/1914185]. [Traducción al español: Teoría prospectiva: un análisis de la decisión bajo riesgo. Estudios de Psicología, 29-30, 95-124].
McGraw, A.P., Shafir, E. y Todorov, A. (2010). Valuing money and things: Why a $20 item can be worth more and less than $20. Management Science, 56(5), 816-830. [DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1147].
Rabin, M. (2000). Risk Aversion and Expected-utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem. Econometrica, 68(5), 1281-1292 [DOI: 10.1111/1468-0262.00158].
Rottenstreich, Y. y Hsee, C.K. (2001). Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185-190 [DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00334].
Samuelson, P.A. y Nordhaus, W. D. (1996). Economía. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
Scholten, M. y Read, D. (2014). Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48, 67-83 [DOI: 10.1007/s11166-014-9183-2].
Tichy, A. (2007). Würfeln über Menschenleben? (The influence of the variance of a risk option on the risk preference of victims in framing tasks). Berlin: Verlag.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 APUNTES DE PSICOLOGÍA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
