IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i10p2288-d1146871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Analysis under Behavioral Economics—Incentive Mechanism for Improving Data Quality in Crowdsensing

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaqi Liu

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China)

  • Xi Shen

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China)

  • Wenxi Liu

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China)

  • Zhi Lv

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China)

  • Ruoti Liu

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China)

  • Deng Li

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China)

Abstract

Due to the profitability and selfishness of crowdfunding system users, under fixed budget conditions, there are problems, such as low task completion rate due to insufficient participants and low data quality. However, the existing incentive mechanisms are mainly based on traditional economics, which believes that whether users participate in tasks depends on whether the benefits of the task outweigh the costs. Behavioral economics shows that people judge the value of gains and losses according to a reference point. The weight given to losses is more important than the weight given to the same gains. Therefore, this article considers the impact of reference dependency and loss aversion on user decision-making and proposes a participant selection mechanism based on reference dependency (PSM-RD) and a quality assurance mechanism based on loss aversion (QAM-LA). PSM-RD uses reference points to influence user pricing and selects more participants based on relative value. QAM-LA pays additional rewards based on the data quality of participants and motivates them to improve data quality by reconstructing utility functions. The simulation results show that compared with the ABSee mechanism, data quality has improved by 17%, and the value of completed tasks has increased by at least 40%.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaqi Liu & Xi Shen & Wenxi Liu & Zhi Lv & Ruoti Liu & Deng Li, 2023. "Decision Analysis under Behavioral Economics—Incentive Mechanism for Improving Data Quality in Crowdsensing," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-23, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:10:p:2288-:d:1146871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/10/2288/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/10/2288/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    2. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    5. Chen, Zhuoqiong (Charlie) & Ong, David & Segev, Ella, 2017. "Heterogeneous risk/loss aversion in complete information all-pay auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 23-37.
    6. Liu, Wei & Song, Shiji & Wu, Cheng, 2013. "Impact of loss aversion on the newsvendor game with product substitution," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 352-359.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    2. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    3. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2016. "Expected utility theory and inner and outer measures of loss aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 10-20.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    6. Kogler, Christoph & Kühberger, Anton & Gilhofer, Rainer, 2013. "Real and hypothetical endowment effects when exchanging lottery tickets: Is regret a better explanation than loss aversion?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 42-53.
    7. Simon Gaechter & Eric Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Individual-Level Loss Aversion In Riskless And Risky Choices," Discussion Papers 2007-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Graham Loomes & Shepley Orr & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Taste uncertainty and status quo effects in consumer choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 113-135, October.
    9. Schmidt, Ulrich & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina, 2015. "Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2011, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    11. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    12. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    13. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    14. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Zuzana Gocmanová & Jaromír Skorkovský & Štěpán Veselý & Jan Böhm, 2019. "Where Do You Want to Go Skiing? The Effect of the Reference Point and Loss Aversion," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 243-252.
    17. Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David & Quérou, Nicolas, 2021. "Goal-oriented agents in a market," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    18. Chen, Yenming J. & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2017. "Non-differentiated green product positioning: Roles of uncertainty and rationality," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 248-260.
    19. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight tra," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    20. Campbell Pryor & Amy Perfors & Piers D. L. Howe, 2018. "Reversing the endowment effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(3), pages 275-286, May.
    21. Lindsey, Robin, 2011. "State-dependent congestion pricing with reference-dependent preferences," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 1501-1526.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:10:p:2288-:d:1146871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.