IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00670450.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The differential processing of price in gains and losses: the effects of frame and need for cognition

Author

Listed:
  • Subimal Chatterjee

    (School of Management - Binghamton University [SUNY] - SUNY - State University of New York)

  • Timothy B. Heath

    (PITT - University of Pittsburgh - Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PCSHE))

  • Sandra J. Milberg

    (GU - Georgetown University [Washington])

  • Karen R. France

    (West Virginia University [Morgantown])

Abstract

Perhaps the most fundamental principle of decision theory is that more money is preferred to less: the principle of desired wealth. Based on this and other principles such as reference dependence and loss aversion, researchers have derived and demonstrated mental accounting (MA) rules for multiple outcome situations. Experiment 1 tested the invariance of the desired wealth principle and two mental accounting rules (mixed gain, e.g. $100 gain and a $50 loss; mixed loss, e.g. $100 loss and a $50 gain) across types of decision maker and frame. The desired wealth principle and the MA rule for mixed gains were found to vary depending upon (1) the thoughtfulness of the decision maker (need for cognition, NC), and (2) the frame used to describe gains and losses (e.g. a gain of $x versus a gain of y%). The MA rule for mixed losses, however, was found to be immune to framing effects, even among people who are generally less thoughtful. The differential processing of gains and losses across frames (dollar versus percentage) and individuals (less versus more thoughtful) was tested further in Experiment 2 where evaluations of mixed losses were made at the level of the gestalt as well as the constituent (the gain and the loss being evaluated separately). Framing effects were evidenced only among subjects lower in NC and only when the constituent gain was evaluated. Evaluations of the overall mixed loss and the constituent loss were comparable across situation and individual, suggesting that losses motivate greater processing among people otherwise inclined toward cognitive miserliness.

Suggested Citation

  • Subimal Chatterjee & Timothy B. Heath & Sandra J. Milberg & Karen R. France, 2000. "The differential processing of price in gains and losses: the effects of frame and need for cognition," Post-Print hal-00670450, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00670450
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Friedrich, James & Lucas, Gale & Hodell, Emily, 2005. "Proportional reasoning, framing effects, and affirmative action: Is six of one really half a dozen of another in university admissions?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 195-215, November.
    2. McElroy, Todd & Dickinson, David L., 2010. "Thoughtful days and valenced nights: How much will you think about the problem?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(7), pages 516-523, December.
    3. Klaus Abbink & Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2006. "Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 103-121, June.
    4. Montero, Maria & Sheth, Jesal D., 2021. "Naivety about hidden information: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 92-116.
    5. Kuvaas, Bard & Selart, Marcus, 2004. "Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 198-207, November.
    6. McElroy, Todd & Dickinson, David L., 2010. "Thoughtful days and valenced nights: How much will you think about the problem?," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(7), pages 516-523, December.
    7. Chan, Chien Sheng Richard & Park, Haemin Dennis, 2013. "The influence of dispositional affect and cognition on venture investment portfolio concentration," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 397-412.
    8. Bartels, Daniel M., 2006. "Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 76-95, May.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:110-115 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Jonathan Corbin & Todd McElroy & Cassie Black, 2010. "Memory reflected in our decisions: Higher working memory capacity predicts greater bias in risky choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 110-115, April.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:7:p:516-523 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Shi, Haijiao & Chen, Rong & Xu, Xiaobing, 2021. "How reward uncertainty influences subsequent donations: The role of mental accounting," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 383-391.
    13. Rajagopal, Priyali & Rha, Jong-Youn, 2009. "The mental accounting of time," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 772-781, October.
    14. Li, Meng & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2013. "A big fish or a small pond? Framing effects in percentages," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 190-199.
    15. Franses, Ph.H.B.F. & Vlam, A., 2011. "Financial innumeracy," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2011-01, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    16. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    17. Chatterjee, Subimal & Malshe, Ashwin Vinod & Heath, Timothy B., 2010. "The effect of mixed versus blocked sequencing of promotion and prevention features on brand evaluation: The moderating role of regulatory focus," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1290-1294, December.

    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:hal:journl:hal-00670450. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.