IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v24y2023i3d10.1007_s10902-023-00635-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Haijiao Cui

    (Zhejiang Sci-Tech University)

  • Bin Cao

    (Jinan University)

  • Aimei Li

    (Jinan University)

  • Zhaohui Li

    (Shandong University)

Abstract

Subjective value is foundational to decision-making processes and people's sense of happiness. To better represent decision-makers' psychological characteristics when subjective value is formed, we establish an attention-and-reference-dependent subjective value model by simultaneously considering the absolute subjective value, relative subjective value, and attention distribution. Our model provides researchers with a theoretical tool for explaining, predicting, and adjusting decision behaviors. Additionally, to maximize the total experienced subjective value brought by multiple events, we compare hedonic editing strategies and demonstrate that the optimal hedonic editing strategy is sensitive to the stimulus intensity. This stimulus-intensity-sensitive strategy is contrary to the hedonic editing strategy inferred from the prospect theory value function when stimulus intensity is relatively small. The results of this study enrich transaction utility theory and expectation-disconfirmation theory and can guide decision-makers in enhancing happiness by rationally dealing with gains and losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Haijiao Cui & Bin Cao & Aimei Li & Zhaohui Li, 2023. "A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1191-1217, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:24:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10902-023-00635-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-023-00635-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10902-023-00635-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10902-023-00635-5?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. 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.
    2. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    3. Fishburn P. C. & Luce, R. D., 1996. "Joint receipt and Thaler's hedonic editing rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 52-52, February.
    4. Elizabeth Cowley, 2008. "The Perils of Hedonic Editing," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(1), pages 71-84, January.
    5. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    6. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience in Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 47-52, May.
    7. March, James G., 1988. "Variable risk preferences and adaptive aspirations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 5-24, January.
    8. 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..
    9. Alex Imas, 2016. "The Realization Effect: Risk-Taking after Realized versus Paper Losses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(8), pages 2086-2109, August.
    10. Jonathan E. Ingersoll & Lawrence J. Jin, 2013. "Realization Utility with Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 26(3), pages 723-767.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 221-234, Winter.
    12. Botond Koszegi & Adam Szeidl, 2013. "A Model of Focusing in Economic Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(1), pages 53-104.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Peter P. Wakker & Rakesh Sarin, 1997. "Back to Bentham? Explorations of Experienced Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 375-406.
    14. Ozbeklik, Serkan & Smith, Janet Kiholm, 2017. "Risk taking in competition: Evidence from match play golf tournaments," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 506-523.
    15. Chai, Junyi, 2021. "A model of ambition, aspiration and happiness," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 692-702.
    16. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    17. Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Efe A. Ok, 2014. "A Canonical Model of Choice with Initial Endowments," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(2), pages 851-883.
    18. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    19. Devin G. Pope & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2011. "Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 129-157, February.
    20. Jack Knetsch & Fang-Fang Tang & Richard Thaler, 2001. "The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: Is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(3), pages 257-269, December.
    21. Sunhae Sul & Jennifer Kim & Incheol Choi, 2013. "Subjective Well-Being and Hedonic Editing: How Happy People Maximize Joint Outcomes of Loss and Gain," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 1409-1430, August.
    22. Ryan Elmore & Andrew Urbaczewski, 2021. "Loss Aversion in Professional Golf," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(2), pages 202-217, February.
    23. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    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. Martín Egozcue & Luis Fuentes García, 2024. "Optimizing hedonic editing for multiple outcomes: an algorithm," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 1-25, December.

    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. Evan Weingarten & Sudeep Bhatia & Barbara Mellers, 2019. "Multiple Goals as Reference Points: One Failure Makes Everything Else Feel Worse," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3337-3352, July.
    2. Flepp, Raphael & Meier, Philippe & Franck, Egon, 2021. "The effect of paper outcomes versus realized outcomes on subsequent risk-taking: Field evidence from casino gambling," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 45-55.
    3. Chen Lian & Yueran Ma & Carmen Wang, 2019. "Low Interest Rates and Risk-Taking: Evidence from Individual Investment Decisions," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(6), pages 2107-2148.
    4. Manel Baucells & Silvia Bellezza, 2017. "Temporal Profiles of Instant Utility During Anticipation, Event, and Recall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 729-748, March.
    5. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    6. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    7. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    8. Barrafrem, Kinga & Västfjäll, Daniel & Tinghög, Gustav, 2021. "The arithmetic of outcome editing in financial and social domains," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. Gagnon-Bartsch, Tristan & Bushong, Benjamin, 2022. "Learning with misattribution of reference dependence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    11. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2020. "Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 473-501, January.
    12. Alex Markle & George Wu & Rebecca White & Aaron Sackett, 2018. "Goals as reference points in marathon running: A novel test of reference dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 19-50, February.
    13. Philippe Meier & Raphael Flepp & Maximilian Rüdisser & Egon Franck, 2020. "The effect of paper versus realized losses on subsequent risk-taking: Field evidence from casino gambling," Working Papers 385, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    14. Ellis, Andrew & Freeman, David J., 2024. "Revealing choice bracketing," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125470, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. repec:oup:qjecon:v:128:y:2012:i:1:p:53-104 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köhler, Katrin, 2016. "Exchange asymmetries for bads? Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 231-241.
    17. Hong Chao & Chun-Yu Ho & Xiangdong Qin, 2017. "Risk taking after absolute and relative wealth changes: The role of reference point adaptation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 157-186, April.
    18. Manel Baucells & Martin Weber & Frank Welfens, 2011. "Reference-Point Formation and Updating," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 506-519, March.
    19. Brettschneider, Julia & Burro, Giovanni & Henderson, Vicky, 2021. "Wide framing disposition effect: An empirical study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 330-347.
    20. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    21. Carter, Steven & McBride, Michael, 2013. "Experienced utility versus decision utility: Putting the ‘S’ in satisfaction," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 13-23.

    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:spr:jhappi:v:24:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10902-023-00635-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.