IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v29y1995i1p33-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint receipt and Thaler's hedonic editing rule

Author

Listed:
  • Fishburn, Peter C.
  • Duncan Luce, R.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Fishburn, Peter C. & Duncan Luce, R., 1995. "Joint receipt and Thaler's hedonic editing rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 33-76, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:29:y:1995:i:1:p:33-76
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165-4896(94)00763-X
    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. Luce, R. Duncan, 1991. "Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 75-100, February.
    2. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    3. 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..
    4. 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.
    5. Luce, R Duncan & Fishburn, Peter C, 1991. "Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 29-59, January.
    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. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    2. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & Ričardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions : "Create your own bundle -- choose 1, 2, or all 3 !"," Post-Print halshs-00747008, HAL.
    3. Hu Rongyu, 2023. "Validity verification of Mental Accounting in Public Goods Payment," Working Papers 2213, Waseda University, Faculty of Political Science and Economics.
    4. Aloysius, John A., 1999. "Risk aggregation and the efficient selection of joint projects by a consortium," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 389-396, June.

    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. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    2. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    3. Cho, Young-Hee & Duncan Luce, R. & Truong, Lan, 2002. "Duplex decomposition and general segregation of lotteries of a gain and a loss: An empirical evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1176-1193, November.
    4. P Brooks & H Zank, 2004. "Attitudes on Gain and Loss Lotteries: A Simple Experiment," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0402, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    5. Luc Meunier & Sima Ohadi, 2023. "When are two portfolios better than one? A prospect theory approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 503-538, April.
    6. Kogler, Christoph & Kühberger, Anton & Gilhofer, Rainer, 2013. "Real and hypothetical endowment effects when exchanging lottery tickets: Is regret a better explanation than loss aversion?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 42-53.
    7. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    8. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    9. White, Tiffany Barnett & Novak, Thomas P. & Hoffman, Donna L., 2014. "No Strings Attached: When Giving It Away Versus Making Them Pay Reduces Consumer Information Disclosure," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 184-195.
    10. Liu, Liping, 1999. "Approximate portfolio analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 35-49, November.
    11. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    12. Mohammad Reza Nikbakht & Mehrdad Sadr Ara, 2016. "A new experimental model for profit maximization," Journal of Economic and Financial Studies (JEFS), LAR Center Press, vol. 4(3), pages 45-52, June.
    13. Manel Baucells & Silvia Bellezza, 2017. "Temporal Profiles of Instant Utility During Anticipation, Event, and Recall," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 729-748, March.
    14. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
    15. De Waegenaere, A.M.B. & Wakker, P.P., 1997. "Choquet Integrals With Respect to Non-Monotonic Set Functions," Other publications TiSEM 85f2b7aa-da15-4c19-9765-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Dan K. Hsu & Johan Wiklund & Richard D. Cotton, 2017. "Success, Failure, and Entrepreneurial Reentry: An Experimental Assessment of the Veracity of Self–Efficacy and Prospect Theory," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(1), pages 19-47, January.
    17. Sanjit Dhami & Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2020. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Tax Evasion: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 8606, CESifo.
    18. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    19. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    20. Bowman, David & Minehart, Deborah & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Loss aversion in a consumption-savings model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 155-178, February.

    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:matsoc:v:29:y:1995:i:1:p:33-76. 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/inca/505565 .

    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.