Palabras clave
Information Integration Theory
loss Aversion
dual process theories
value function
Cómo citar
Resumen
The curvature of the value/utility function has been understood, since D. Bernouilli, as the expression of an attitude towards risk. This perspectivewas kept in such influential theories of judgment and decision as Prospect Theory, in both its original and cumulative versions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). More recently, dualprocess interpretations of the value function as a mix of affect and deliberation (Hsee & Rottenstreich, 2004) have proposed that function curvature reflects the operation of affect-based evaluations via an affective focus coefficient indexed by “α” (varying between 0 and 1) in the equation v = A αS 1-α (with “v” the subjective value, “A” the intensity of the affective response, and “S” the scope of the stimuli). According to this view, evaluating more hedonic targets results in more curved (scopeinsensitive) functions than evaluating instrumental/utilitarian targets, and more affect-oriented subjects exhibit more pronounced curvatures (lower 1α) than deliberation-oriented subjects. These predictions are evaluated in this study and additionally used for an exploratory evaluation of Reyna and Farley’s (2006, 2007) proposal that analytical processing and gist/affect-based processing predominate, respectively, in adolescents’ and in adults’ judgment and decision making. Information Integration Theory was used to establish a model allowing for the functional measurement of subjective value at the (ratio) level required for comparing curvature parameters and computing Loss Aversion coefficients. The outcomes partially favored the prediction of larger curvatures (lower 1- α) and larger loss aversion in more hedonic tasks. However, they did not support the prediction of more scope insensitivity and larger values of loss aversion in adults than in adolescents. As the main suggested difference between adults and adolescents, individual differences in risk attitude appeared to be less polarized towards loss aversion among adolescents in more hedonic tasks.
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & L’Haridon, O. (2008). A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion in prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 36 , 245-266.
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Parashiv (2007). Measuring loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free approach. Management Science , 53 , 1659-1674.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory . New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1982). Methods of information integration theory . New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, N. H., & Schlottmann, A. (1991). Developmental study of personal probability. Contributions to information integration theory: Vol. III. Developmental (pp. 111-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, N. H., & Shanteau, J. C. (1970). Information integration in risky decision making Journal of Experimental Psychology , 84 , 441-451.
Bernoulli, D. (1738/1954). Expositions of a new theory of the measurement of risk. Econometrica , 22 , 23–36.
Brooks, P. & Zank, H. (2005). Loss averse behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 31 (3), 301-325.
Hershey, J., & Shoemaker, P. (1985). Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent? Management Science , 31 (10), 1213-1231.
Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science , 12 (3) 185-190.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica , 4 , 263-291.
Khan, U., Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). Hedonic and utilitarian consumption. In S. Ratneshwar and David Glen Mick (Eds.), Inside consumption: Frontiers of research on consumer motives, goals, and desires (pp. 144- 165). New York: Routledge.
Köberlling, V., & Wakker, P. P. (2005). An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Theory , 122 , 119-131.
Masin, S. C. (2004). Tests of functional measurement theory for multiplicative models. In A. M. Oliveira, M. Teixeira, G. F. Borges, & M. J. Ferro (Eds.),. Fechner Day 2004. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics (pp. 447-452). Coimbra, Portugal: The International Society for Psychophysics.
O’Curry, S., & Strahilevitz, M. (2001). Probability and mode of acquisition effects on choices between hedonic and utilitarian options. Marketing Letters , 12 , 37-49.
Reyna, V., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 7 (1) 1-44.
Reyna, V., & Farley, F. (2007). Is the teen brain too rational? Scientific American Reports , 17 (2), 61-67.
Rottenstreich, Y., & Shu, S. (2004). The Connections between affect and decision making: Nine resulting phenomena. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 444- 463). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Schlottmann, A. (2001). Children´s probability intuitions: Understanding the expected value of complex games. Child Development , 72 (1), 103-122.
Shanteau, J. (1974). Component processes in risky decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 103 (4), 680-691.
Shanteau, J. (1975). An information integration analysis of risky decision making. In M. F. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes (pp. 109-137). New York: Academic Press.
Slovic, P., Finucane, Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis , 24 (2), 2004.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 107 (4), 1039-1061.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 5 , 297-323.
Viegas, R. G., Oliveira, A. M., & Garriga-Trillo, A. (2009). A relative ratio model for the integration of gains and losses in a mixed regular roulette- type game. In M. Elliott, S. Antonijecic, S. Berthaud, P. Mulcahy, B. Bargary, C. Martyn, & M. Schmidt (Eds.), Fechner Day 2009: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics (pp. 545- 550). Galway, Ireland: The International Society for Psychophysics.
Viegas, R. G., Oliveira, A. M., & Garriga-Trillo, A. (2010). Loss aversion and the locus of nonlinearity in decision under risk: A test between Prospect Theory and SP/A theory with functional measurement. In A. Bastianelli & G. Vidotto (Eds.), Fechner Day 2010: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics (pp. 345-350). Padua, Italy: The International Society for Psychophysics.
Viegas R., G., Oliveira, A. M., Garriga-Trillo, A., & Grieco, A. (2012). A functional model for the integration of gains and losses under risk: Implications for the measurement of subjective value. Psicologica: International Journal of Methodology and Experimental Psychology , 33 , 711-733
Weiss, D. (2006). Analysis of variance and functional measurement: A practical guide . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, D. (1997-2007). FM-Functional Measurement. Version 2.1 [Computer software]. Los Angeles, USA.
Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., & Denburg, N. L. (2011). Trajectory of risky decision making for potential gains and losses from ages 5 to 85. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 24 , 331-344.
Esta revista científica se encuentra registrada bajo la licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional. Por lo tanto, esta obra se puede reproducir, distribuir y comunicar públicamente en formato digital, siempre que se reconozca el nombre de los autores y a la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Se permite citar, adaptar, transformar, autoarchivar, republicar y crear a partir del material, para cualquier finalidad (incluso comercial), siempre que se reconozca adecuadamente la autoría, se proporcione un enlace a la obra original y se indique si se han realizado cambios. La Pontificia Universidad Javeriana no retiene los derechos sobre las obras publicadas y los contenidos son responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores, quienes conservan sus derechos morales, intelectuales, de privacidad y publicidad. El aval sobre la intervención de la obra (revisión, corrección de estilo, traducción, diagramación) y su posterior divulgación se otorga mediante una licencia de uso y no a través de una cesión de derechos, lo que representa que la revista y la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana se eximen de cualquier responsabilidad que se pueda derivar de una mala práctica ética por parte de los autores. En consecuencia de la protección brindada por la licencia de uso, la revista no se encuentra en la obligación de publicar retractaciones o modificar la información ya publicada, a no ser que la errata surja del proceso de gestión editorial. La publicación de contenidos en esta revista no representa regalías para los contribuyentes.