IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pepspp/v10y2004i1n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychology's Prospect Theory: Relevance for Identifying Positions of Local Satiation as Robust Reference Points of Joint Actions in Peace Agreements

Author

Listed:
  • Moyersoen Johan

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

This paper proposes a new approach to identify robust joint actions for groups in conflict. It puts forward the concept of stable neighborhood positions or positions of local satiation. Positions of local satiation are positions of joint action where a small deviation of either of the belligerent groups from that arrangement does not increase one's benefit. The paper seeks to support its argument in two ways. First, it gives a descriptive foundation extracted from prospect theory for the concept of positions of local satiation. Especially the concept of myopic loss aversion that embraces narrow framing and local loss aversion is employed. Second, it tries to apply the concept of stable neighborhood positions in a case study. The case study unravels an investment conflict in the city of Brussels, Belgium.

Suggested Citation

  • Moyersoen Johan, 2004. "Psychology's Prospect Theory: Relevance for Identifying Positions of Local Satiation as Robust Reference Points of Joint Actions in Peace Agreements," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 46-68, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:10:y:2004:i:1:n:2
    DOI: 10.2202/1554-8597.1066
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-8597.1066
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1554-8597.1066?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. Richard H. Thaler & Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman & Alan Schwartz, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 647-661.
    2. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    3. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    4. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    5. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1999. "Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 364-381, March.
    6. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    7. 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..
    8. Epstein, Larry G & Zin, Stanley E, 1991. "Substitution, Risk Aversion, and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption and Asset Returns: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(2), pages 263-286, April.
    9. Walter, Barbara F., 1997. "The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 335-364, July.
    10. Doyle, Michael W. & Sambanis, Nicholas, 2000. "International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(4), pages 779-801, December.
    11. Hartzell, Caroline & Hoddie, Matthew & Rothchild, Donald, 2001. "Stabilizing the Peace After Civil War: An Investigation of Some Key Variables," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(1), pages 183-208, January.
    12. Collier, Paul & Hoeffler, Anke, 2004. "Aid, policy and growth in post-conflict societies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1125-1145, October.
    13. Dixon, William J., 1996. "Third-party techniques for preventing conflict escalation and promoting peaceful settlement," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 653-681, October.
    14. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," NBER Working Papers 8190, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2017. "Does Aggregated Returns Disclosure Increase Portfolio Risk Taking?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1971-2005.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    4. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    5. Aloysius, John A., 2005. "Ambiguity aversion and the equity premium puzzle: A re-examination of experimental data on repeated gambles," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 635-655, October.
    6. David Quinn & Jonathan Wilkenfeld & Pelin Eralp & Victor Asal & Theodore Mclauchlin, 2013. "Crisis managers but not conflict resolvers: Mediating ethnic intrastate conflict in Africa," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(4), pages 387-406, September.
    7. Daniel Gottlieb & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2020. "Narrow Framing and Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(4), pages 861-893, December.
    8. Francis Larson & John A. List & Robert D. Metcalfe, 2016. "Can Myopic Loss Aversion Explain the Equity Premium Puzzle? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment with Professional Traders," NBER Working Papers 22605, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Moshe Levy, 2022. "An evolutionary explanation of the Allais paradox," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1545-1574, November.
    10. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    11. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    12. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    13. Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2005. "Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: how general is the phenomenon?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 25-38, January.
    14. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2006. "The Loss Aversion / Narrow Framing Approach to the Equity Premium Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 12378, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Todd Sarver, 2012. "Optimal Reference Points and Anticipation," Discussion Papers 1566, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    17. 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.
    18. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Ponti, Giovanni & Tomás, Josefa, 2019. "Is it myopia or loss aversion? A study on investment game experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 36-40.
    19. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    20. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bpj:pepspp:v:10:y:2004:i:1:n:2. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.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.