Publicado oct 7, 2016



PLUMX
Almetrics
 
Dimensions
 

Google Scholar
 
Search GoogleScholar


Ricardo G. Viegas

Armando M. Oliveira

Ricardo Gaspar Viegas

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

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.

Keywords

Medición funcional, teoría de la integración de la información, aversión a la pérdida, teoría de procesos duales, función de valorFunctional Measurement, Information Integration Theory, loss Aversion, dual process theories, value function

References
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.
Cómo citar
Viegas, R. G., Oliveira, A. M., & Gaspar Viegas, R. (2016). Comparing adults and adolescents regarding the scope insensitivity of value curves: A functional measurement approach. Universitas Psychologica, 15(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy15-3.caar
Sección
Artículos