IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v30y1996i2p241-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Object valence as a moderator of the framing effect on risk preference

Author

Listed:
  • Kessler, Eric H.
  • Ford, Cameron M.
  • Bailey, James R.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Kessler, Eric H. & Ford, Cameron M. & Bailey, James R., 1996. "Object valence as a moderator of the framing effect on risk preference," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 241-256, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:30:y:1996:i:2:p:241-256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-2681(96)00860-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Cohen, Michele & Jaffray, Jean-Yves & Said, Tanios, 1987. "Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    3. Fiegenbaum, Avi, 1990. "Prospect theory and the risk-return association : An empirical examination in 85 industries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 187-203, October.
    4. 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..
    5. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, November.
    6. Budescu, David V. & Weiss, Wendy, 1987. "Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: A test of prospect theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 184-202, April.
    7. Levin, Irwin P. & Johnson, Richard D. & Russo, Craig P. & Deldin, Patricia J., 1985. "Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 362-377, December.
    8. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. M. Pelé & M. Broihanne & B. Thierry & J. Call & V. Dufour, 2014. "To bet or not to bet? Decision-making under risk in non-human primates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 141-166, October.
    2. Sophie Steelandt & Marie-Hélène Broihanne & Amélie Romain & Bernard Thierry & Valérie Dufour, 2013. "Decision-Making under Risk of Loss in Children," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, January.

    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. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    2. Kalayci, Erkan & Basdas, Ulkem, 2010. "Does the prospect theory also hold for power traders? Empirical evidence from a Swiss energy company," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 38-45, January.
    3. Itzhak Venezia, 2018. "Lecture Notes in Behavioral Finance," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 10751, October.
    4. Aloysius, John A., 2003. "Rational escalation of costs by playing a sequence of unfavorable gambles: the martingale," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 111-129, May.
    5. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2016. "An elicitation of utility for quality of life under prospect theory," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 121-134.
    6. Duxbury, Darren, 2012. "Sunk costs and sunk benefits: A re-examination of re-investment decisions," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 144-156.
    7. Hytönen, Kaisa & Baltussen, Guido & van den Assem, Martijn J. & Klucharev, Vasily & Sanfey, Alan G. & Smidts, Ale, 2014. "Path dependence in risky choice: Affective and deliberative processes in brain and behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 566-581.
    8. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    9. Schade, Christian & Schroeder, Andreas & Krause, Kai Oliver, 2010. "Coordination after gains and losses: Is prospect theory’s value function predictive for games?," Structural Change in Agriculture/Strukturwandel im Agrarsektor (SiAg) Working Papers 59524, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    10. Franciosi, Robert & Kujal, Praveen & Michelitsch, Roland & Smith, Vernon & Deng, Gang, 1996. "Experimental tests of the endowment effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 213-226, August.
    11. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    12. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    13. Hsu, Yuan-Lin & Chow, Edward H., 2013. "The house money effect on investment risk taking: Evidence from Taiwan," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1102-1115.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. McGee, Peter, 2013. "Bidding in private-value auctions with uncertain values," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 312-326.
    16. Mehmet Karacuka & Asad Zaman, 2012. "The empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory: a review of the literature," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 366-414.
    17. Chu, Hsunchi & Liao, Shuling, 2010. "Buying while expecting to sell: The economic psychology of online resale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1073-1078, September.
    18. Schade, Christian & Steul, Martina & Schröder, Andreas, 2002. "Starting points' effects on risk-taking behavior," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,15, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    19. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    20. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2008. "Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 67-81, January.
    21. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.

    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:eee:jeborg:v:30:y:1996:i:2:p:241-256. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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.