This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

The Affect Heuristic and the Attractiveness of Simple Gambles

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Ian Bateman (Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia)
Sam Dent (Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia)
Ellen Peters (Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon)
Paul Slovic (Department of Psychology, University of Oregon)
Chris Starmer (CeDEx, University of Nottingham)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Prior studies have observed that the attractiveness of playing a simple gamble (7/36 to win $9; otherwise win nothing) is greatly enhanced by introducing a small loss (7/36 win $9; otherwise lose 5¢). The present studies tested and confirmed an explanation of this finding based on the concept of evaluability and the affect heuristic. Evaluators of the “noloss” gamble lack a precise feeling for how good $9 is, hence give it little weight in their judgment. In the second gamble, comparison with the small loss makes $9 “come alive with feeling” and become weighted in the judgment, thus increasing the attractiveness of the gamble. These results demonstrate the importance of contextual factors in determining affect and preference for simple risk-taking opportunities. They show that the meaning, utility, and weighting of even a very familiar monetary outcome such as $9 is not fixed, but depends greatly on these contextual factors.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/cedex/publications/2006-18.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham in its series Discussion Papers with number 2006-18.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cdx:dpaper:2006-18

Contact details of provider:
Postal: University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
Phone: +44 (0) 115 951 5620
Fax: +44 (0) 115 951 4159
Web page: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/cedex/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Alex Possajennikov).

Related research
Keywords: affect heuristic preference construction evaluability gambles

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. David Hirshleifer & Tyler Shumway, 2003. "Good Day Sunshine: Stock Returns and the Weather," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(3), pages 1009-1032, 06. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "Elastic Justification: How Unjustifiable Factors Influence Judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 122-129, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Hsee, Christopher K & Kunreuther, Howard C, 2000. " The Affection Effect in Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 141-59, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. " Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
  7. Kahneman, Daniel & Schkade, David & Sunstein, Cass R, 1998. "Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 49-86, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Mellers, Barbara A. & Ordonez, Lisa D. & Birnbaum, Michael H., 1992. "A change-of-process theory for contextual effects and preference reversals in risky decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 331-369, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All the bibliographic data shown here has been contributed by volunteers, thereby helping to keep this service free.

This page was last updated on 2008-9-5.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.