The susceptibility of mental accounting principles to evaluation mode effects

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 120-137

  Chatterjee, Subimal ^a   Heath, Timothy B ^b   Min, Junhong ^c  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Joint and separate evaluations; Mental accounting; Preference reversals

Indexed keywords

EID: 68649115043     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.616     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). When does duration matter in judgment and decision making? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 508-523.
2. Ariely, D., Kahneman, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). When does duration matter in judgment and decision making? (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2000). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 524-529.
3. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140.
4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5. Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G. F., & White, S. B. (1992). Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging analternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 220-240.
6. Baron, J. (1990). Harmful heuristics and the improvement of thinking. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning thinking skills. Contributions to human development (pp. 28-47). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
7. Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1998). Negotiating with yourself and losing: Making decisions with competing internal preferences. Academy of Management Review, 23, 225-241.
8. Bazerman, M. H., Moore, D. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., & Blount, S. (1999). Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39, 41-58.
9. Bonini, N., & Rumiati, R. (1996). Mental accounting and acceptance of a price discount. Acta Psychologica, 93, 149-160.
10. Bornstein, B. H., & Chapman, G. B. (1995). Learning lessons from sunk cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 251-269.
11. Catrambone, R. (2002). The effects of surface and structural feature matches on the access of story analogs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 318-334.
12. Chatterjee, S., Heath, T. B., Milberg, S. J., & France, K. R. (2000). The differential processing of price in gains and losses: The effect of frames and need for cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 61-75.
13. Cheema, A., & Soman, D. (2006). Malleable mental accounting: The effect of flexibility on the justification of attractive spending and consumption decisions. Journal of People Psychology, 16, 33-44.
14. Druckman, J. N. (2001). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 91-101.
15. Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 399-429.
16. Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, B. R., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227-236.
17. Heath, T. B., Chatterjee, S., & France, K. R. (1995). Mental accounting and changes in price: The frame dependence of reference dependence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 90-97.
18. Holland, J. H., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction: Process of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory and Cognition, 15, 332-340.
20. Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107-121.
21. Hsee, C. K. (2000). Attribute evaluability and its implications for joint-separate evaluations and beyond. In D. Kahneman, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values, and frames (pp. 543-563.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
22. Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2004). Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 680-695.
23. Hsee, C. K., Blount, S., Loewenstein, G. F., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 576-590.
24. Irwin, J. R., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & McClelland, G. H. (1993). Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 5-18.
25. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720.
26. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267-293.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrika, 47, 263-291.
28. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
29. Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 5-38.
30. Kuhberger, A. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 230-240.
31. Kuhberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55.
32. Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., & Davis, M. L. (1987). How information frame influences risky decisions: Between-subjects, within-subjects comparisons. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 43-54.
33. Loewenstein, G., Hsee, C. K., Weber, E. U., & Welsh, N. (2001). Risk as feeling. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.
34. Mandel, D. R. (2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 56-76.
35. Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17,4-28.
36. Ritov, I., & Kahneman, D. (1997). How peoples value the environment: Attitudes vs. economic values. In M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Psychological approaches to environmental and ethical issues in management (pp. 33-51.). San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.
37. Sansone, C., Morf, C., & Panter, A. T. (2004). The Sage handbook of methods in social psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
38. Shefrin, H. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1992). Mental accounting, saving, and self control. In G. F. Loewenstein, & J. Elster (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 187-330.). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
39. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of people choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39-60.
40. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting, person choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199-215.
41. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183-206.
42. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
43. Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3, 358-361.
44. Weber, B. J., & Chapman, G. B. (2005). Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 31-46.