IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v29y2008i5p654-666.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory focus effects on discounting over uncertainty for losses vs. gains

Author

Listed:
  • Halamish, Vered
  • Liberman, Nira
  • Higgins, E. Tory
  • Idson, Lorraine Chen

Abstract

Prospect theory [Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323] proposes that uncertainty reduces the perceived intensity of losses slightly less than it reduces the perceived intensity of gains. We examined whether this difference would be more pronounced for prevention focus concerns with obligations (oughts) and security than for promotion focus concerns with aspirations (ideals) and advancement. Study 1 manipulated regulatory focus and Studies 2 and 3 assessed individual differences in chronic regulatory focus. The studies applied a psychophysical method to examine discounting over uncertainty. Studies 1 and 2 examined hedonic intensity of pleasure of anticipating gains and pain of anticipating losses. Study 3 examined motivational intensity to approach gains or to avoid losses. All three studies found that in a prevention focus, more than in a promotion focus, negative prospects were discounted over uncertainty more than positive prospects. We discuss the relevance of motivation to positive/negative asymmetries.

Suggested Citation

  • Halamish, Vered & Liberman, Nira & Higgins, E. Tory & Idson, Lorraine Chen, 2008. "Regulatory focus effects on discounting over uncertainty for losses vs. gains," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 654-666, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:29:y:2008:i:5:p:654-666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(07)00070-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. 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..
    3. Brockner, Joel & Paruchuri, Srikanth & Idson, Lorraine Chen & Higgins, E. Tory, 2002. "Regulatory Focus and the Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 5-24, January.
    4. Forster, Jens & Higgins, E. Tory & Bianco, Amy Taylor, 2003. "Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 148-164, January.
    5. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Heejae Shin & Wirawan Dahana, 2017. "Asymmetric Persuasive Effects of Gain- and Loss-related Messages in Electronic Word of Mouth," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(12), pages 1-82, November.
    2. Park, Tae-Youn & Kim, Seongsu & Sung, Li-Kuo, 2017. "Fair pay dispersion: A regulatory focus theory view," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1-11.
    3. François Cochard & Alexandre Flage, 2023. "Sharing Losses in Dictator and Ultimatum Games: A Meta-Analysis," Working Papers 2023-09, CRESE.
    4. Simona Sacchi & Luca Stanca, 2011. "Asymmetric perception of gains vs non-losses and losses vs non-gains: The causal role of regulatory focus," Working Papers 214, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Nov 2011.
    5. Garrido-Morgado, Álvaro & González-Benito, Óscar & Martos-Partal, Mercedes & Campo, Katia, 2021. "Which Products are More Responsive to In-Store Displays: Utilitarian or Hedonic?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 477-491.
    6. Katrin Muehlfeld & Diemo Urbig & Utz Weitzel, 2017. "Entrepreneurs’ Exploratory Perseverance in Learning Settings," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(4), pages 533-565, July.
    7. Seunghye Lee & Rami Jung, 2023. "You Say Tough, I Say Hope: An Effect of CEO Regulatory Focus on Corporate Social Performance under Challenging Market Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Das, Gopal & Mukherjee, Amaradri & Smith, Ronn J., 2018. "The Perfect Fit: The Moderating Role of Selling Cues on Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Types," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 203-216.
    9. L. Robin Keller & Yitong Wang, 2017. "Information Presentation in Decision and Risk Analysis: Answered, Partly Answered, and Unanswered Questions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1132-1145, June.
    10. J. Magendans & J.M. Gutteling & S. Zebel, 2017. "Psychological determinants of financial buffer saving: the influence of financial risk tolerance and regulatory focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 1076-1093, August.
    11. Higgins, E. Tory & Cornwell, James F.M., 2016. "Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment & decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 56-67.
    12. Kamleitner, Bernadette & Mandel, David R. & Dhami, Mandeep K., 2011. "Risky discounts: Do people prefer them on a per-item or per-purchase basis and why?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 951-961.

    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. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Rania HENTATI & Jean-Luc PRIGENT, 2010. "Structured Portfolio Analysis under SharpeOmega Ratio," EcoMod2010 259600073, EcoMod.
    3. Diecidue, E. & Schmidt, U. & Wakker, P.P., 2000. "A Theory of the Gambling Effect," Discussion Paper 2000-75, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    5. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    6. Oliver, Adam, 2003. "The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 159, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    8. Jou, Rong-Chang & Chen, Ke-Hong, 2013. "An application of cumulative prospect theory to freeway drivers’ route choice behaviours," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 123-131.
    9. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    10. Ding, David K. & Charoenwong, Charlie & Seetoh, Raymond, 2004. "Prospect theory, analyst forecasts, and stock returns," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4-5), pages 425-442.
    11. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Shuping Wu & Zan Yang, 2023. "Government Behavior on Urban Land Supply: Does it Follow a Prospect Preference?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 264-286, August.
    13. Schwanen, Tim & Ettema, Dick, 2009. "Coping with unreliable transportation when collecting children: Examining parents' behavior with cumulative prospect theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 511-525, June.
    14. Zan Yang & Shuping Wu, 2019. "Land acquisition outcome, developer risk attitude and land development timing," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 233-271, August.
    15. Stefan Schiller, 2017. "The Quest for Rationality: Chief Financial Officers’ and Accounting Master’s Students’ Perception of Economic Rationality," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, April.
    16. Matthew Rabin, 1998. "Psychology and Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 11-46, March.
    17. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    18. Jasna Auer Antoncic & Bostjan Antoncic & Matjaz Gantar & Robert D. Hisrich & Lawrence J. Marks & Alexandre A. Bachkirov & Zhaoyang Li & Pierre Polzin & Jose L. Borges & Antonio Coelho & Marja-Liisa Ka, 2018. "Risk-Taking Propensity and Entrepreneurship: The Role of Power Distance," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(01), pages 1-26, March.
    19. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    20. Matteo Ploner, 2017. "Hold on to it? An experimental analysis of the disposition effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 118-127, March.

    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:joepsy:v:29:y:2008:i:5:p:654-666. 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.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    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.