Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions : "Create your own bundle -- choose 1, 2, or all 3 !"
Whether to keep products segregated (e.g., unbundled) or integrate some or all of them (e.g., bundle) has been a problem of profound interest in areas such as portfolio theory in finance, risk capital allocations in insurance, and marketing of consumer products. Such decisions are inherently complex and depend on factors such as the underlying product values and consumer preferences, the latter being frequently described using value functions, also known as utility functions in economics. In this paper, we develop decision rules for multiple products, which we generally call 'exposure units' to naturally cover manifold scenarios spanning well beyond 'products'. Our findings show, for example, that the celebrated Thaler's principles of mental accounting hold as originally postulated when the values of all exposure units are positive (i.e., all are gains) or all negative (i.e., all are losses). In the case of exposure units mixed-sign values, decision rules are much more complex and rely on cataloging the Bell-number of cases that grow very fast depending on the number of exposure units. Consequently, in the present paper we provide detailed rules for the integration and segregation decisions in the case up to three exposure units, and partial rules for the arbitrary number of units.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2012|
|Publication status:||Published in Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 2012.57 - ISSN : 1955-611X. 2012|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00747008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
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.:
- Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
- Heath, Timothy B & Chatterjee, Subimal & France, Karen Russo, 1995. " Mental Accounting and Changes in Price: The Frame Dependence of Reference Dependence," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 90-97, June.
- 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.
- Richard H. Thaler, 2008.
"Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,"
INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
- Richard Thaler, 1985. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 199-214.
- Alexander Ljungqvist & William J. Wilhelm, 2005. "Does Prospect Theory Explain IPO Market Behavior?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(4), pages 1759-1790, 08.
- Egozcue, Martín & García, Luis Fuentes & Wong, Wing-Keung & Zitikis, Ricardas, 2011. "Do investors like to diversify? A study of Markowitz preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 188-193, November.
- Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521765015, December.
- Wakker,Peter P., 2010. "Prospect Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521748681, December.
- Sonya Seongyeon Lim, 2006. "Do Investors Integrate Losses and Segregate Gains? Mental Accounting and Investor Trading Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(5), pages 2539-2574, September.
- Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
- al-Nowaihi, Ali & Bradley, Ian & Dhami, Sanjit, 2008. "A note on the utility function under prospect theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 337-339, May.
- Fishburn, Peter C. & Duncan Luce, R., 1995. "Joint receipt and Thaler's hedonic editing rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 33-76, February. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-00747008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.