IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v42y2022ics1755534521000609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delight or disappointment? A model of signal-based other-pleasing choice

Author

Listed:
  • Bose, Arundhati Sarkar
  • Sarkar, Sumit

Abstract

This paper develops a discrete choice model to address the problem of an other-pleasing decision-maker (DM), who makes a choice for another individual without knowing her/his preferences and expectation. The DM's choice may delight or disappoint the other, depending on her/his expectation from the DM. The psychological utility of the other is a function of the emotion triggered by the DM's choice. The objective of the DM is to maximise the expected psychological utility of the other. In the absence of complete information, a risky choice is made by the DM, based on signals about the other's expectation that s/he receives. In terms of personality trait, the DM may be a delight-seeker, or disappointment-averse, or neutral. While a delight-seeker overweighs the other's psychological utility from delight, a disappointment-averse DM overweighs the disutility of disappointment. Based on the model, hypotheses have been constructed and tested in a gamified decision-making scenario that simulated the model conditions. In this serious game experiment, delight-seeking, disappointment-averse, and neutral behaviours were induced by use of appropriate incentivisation of the subjects in the corresponding treatment groups. Unique choice architecture has been given to subjects in each treatment group to signal the expectation of a hypothetical other, and choice decisions were observed under elicited belief. Compared to the control (neutral) group, those in delight-seeking treatment were observed to be less likely, and those in disappointment-averse more likely, to make a choice in conformity to the signal they received. Statistically significant results were obtained only when the signals were strong.

Suggested Citation

  • Bose, Arundhati Sarkar & Sarkar, Sumit, 2022. "Delight or disappointment? A model of signal-based other-pleasing choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:42:y:2022:i:c:s1755534521000609
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534521000609
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2021.100327?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morey, Edward R. & Kritzberg, David, 2012. "It's not where you do it, it's who you do it with?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 176-191.
    2. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    3. Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson‐Stenman, 2010. "Why Do You Vote and Vote as You Do?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(4), pages 495-516, November.
    4. Chorus, Caspar G., 2015. "Models of moral decision making: Literature review and research agenda for discrete choice analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 69-85.
    5. Vanhamme, Joëlle & de Bont, Cees J.P.M., 2008. "“Surprise Gift” Purchases: Customer Insights from the Small Electrical Appliances Market," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 354-369.
    6. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2009. "Dynamic psychological games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 1-35, January.
    7. Elsenbroich, Corinna & Payette, Nicolas, 2020. "Choosing to cooperate: Modelling public goods games with team reasoning," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    8. Juliano Laran, 2010. "Goal Management in Sequential Choices: Consumer Choices for Others Are More Indulgent than Personal Choices," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 304-314, August.
    9. Jinhee Choi & B. Kyu Kim & Incheol Choi & Youjae Yi, 2006. "Variety-Seeking Tendency in Choice for Others: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Causes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(4), pages 590-595, March.
    10. Geanakoplos, John & Pearce, David & Stacchetti, Ennio, 1989. "Psychological games and sequential rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 60-79, March.
    11. Belk, Russell W & Coon, Gregory S, 1993. "Gift Giving as Agapic Love: An Alternative to the Exchange Paradigm Based on Dating Experiences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(3), pages 393-417, December.
    12. Ruffle, Bradley J., 1999. "Gift giving with emotions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 399-420, July.
    13. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    14. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Martin Dufwenberg, 2007. "Guilt in Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 170-176, May.
    15. Khalmetski, Kiryl & Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2015. "Surprising gifts: Theory and laboratory evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 163-208.
    16. J. Rene Villalobos, 2007. "The Stock Portfolio Game," INFORMS Transactions on Education, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 41-48, September.
    17. Xu, Yilong & Xu, Xiaogeng & Tucker, Steven, 2018. "Ambiguity attitudes in the loss domain: Decisions for self versus others," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 100-103.
    18. Ozdemir, Semra & Johnson, F. Reed & Whittington, Dale, 2016. "Ideology, public goods and welfare valuation: An experiment on allocating government budgets," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 61-72.
    19. Takuya Maruyama & Kenta Hosotani & Tomoki Kawano, 2021. "Inferring proxy response in household travel surveys with unknown completer using a group-based choice model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 283-302, February.
    20. Füllbrunn, Sascha C. & Luhan, Wolfgang J., 2017. "Decision making for others: The case of loss aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 154-156.
    21. J. Vanhamme & J.P.M Cees de Bont, 2008. ""Surprise Gift" Purchases: Customer insights from the small electrical appliances market," Post-Print hal-00487020, HAL.
    22. Davy Lerouge & Luk Warlop, 2006. "Why It Is So Hard to Predict Our Partner's Product Preferences: The Effect of Target Familiarity on Prediction Accuracy," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(3), pages 393-402, November.
    23. Morgan K. Ward & Susan M. Broniarczyk, 2011. "It's Not Me, It's You: How Gift Giving Creates Giver Identity Threat as a Function of Social Closeness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(1), pages 164-181.
    24. Mary Steffel & Robyn A. LeBoeuf, 2014. "Overindividuation in Gift Giving: Shopping for Multiple Recipients Leads Givers to Choose Unique but Less Preferred Gifts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(6), pages 1167-1180.
    25. Ariely, Dan, 2000. "Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers' Decision Making and Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 233-248, September.
    26. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    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. Sumit Sarkar & Arundhati Sarkar Bose, 2018. "Partially Altruistic Choice in Presence of Consensus Bias," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 16(3), pages 853-861, September.
    2. Sarkar, Sumit, 2019. "Gratitude, conscience, and reciprocity: Models of supplier motivation when quality is non-contractible," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 633-642.
    3. Philippe Grégoire, 2018. "Psychology at work," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 65(2), pages 119-135, June.
    4. Ederer, Florian & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2017. "Promises and expectations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 161-178.
    5. Dhami, Sanjit & Wei, Mengxing & al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2019. "Public goods games and psychological utility: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 361-390.
    6. Bierbrauer, Felix & Netzer, Nick, 2016. "Mechanism design and intentions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 557-603.
    7. Gani Aldashev & Georg Kirchsteiger & Alexander Sebald, 2017. "Assignment Procedure Biases in Randomised Policy Experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(602), pages 873-895, June.
    8. Peeters, Ronald & Vorsatz, Marc, 2021. "Simple guilt and cooperation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Corrao, Roberto & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2019. "Incorporating belief-dependent motivation in games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 185-218.
    10. Patel, Amrish & Smith, Alec, 2019. "Guilt and participation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 279-295.
    11. Dhami, Sanjit & Wei, Mengxing & al-Nowaihi, Ali, 2023. "Classical and belief-based gift exchange models: Theory and evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 171-196.
    12. Bracht, Jürgen & Regner, Tobias, 2013. "Moral emotions and partnership," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 313-326.
    13. Jagau, Stephan & Perea, Andrés, 2022. "Common belief in rationality in psychological games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    14. Dufwenberg, Martin & Patel, Amrish, 2019. "Introduction to special issue on psychological game theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 181-184.
    15. Jiabin Wu, 2018. "Indirect higher order beliefs and cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 858-876, December.
    16. von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2013. "Intention-based reciprocity and the hidden costs of control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-65.
    17. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Rimbaud, Claire & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Embezzlement and guilt aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 409-429.
    18. Khalmetski, Kiryl & Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2015. "Surprising gifts: Theory and laboratory evidence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 163-208.
    19. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2015. "Desert and inequity aversion in teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 42-54.
    20. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2010. "Fairness and desert in tournaments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 346-364, July.

    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:eee:eejocm:v:42:y:2022:i:c:s1755534521000609. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.