IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jhappi/v14y2013i4p1409-1430.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjective Well-Being and Hedonic Editing: How Happy People Maximize Joint Outcomes of Loss and Gain

Author

Listed:
  • Sunhae Sul
  • Jennifer Kim
  • Incheol Choi

Abstract

Hedonic editing refers to the decision strategy of arranging multiple events in time to maximize hedonic outcomes (Thaler in Market Sci 4:199–214, 1985 ). The present research investigated the relationship between subjective well-being and hedonic editing. In Study 1, we gave participants pairs of social or financial events and asked them to indicate their preferences regarding the sequence and interval length between the two events. Compared to participants with lower subjective well-being, those with higher subjective well-being preferred to experience a social gain (e.g., chatting with a close friend) temporally closer to a financial loss, suggesting that happy individuals are more inclined than less happy individuals to use positive social events as cross-domain buffers against loss. In Study 2, participants were asked to select the type of positive event they would want to experience after a negative event. Happy individuals displayed a stronger preference for social events. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Sunhae Sul & Jennifer Kim & Incheol Choi, 2013. "Subjective Well-Being and Hedonic Editing: How Happy People Maximize Joint Outcomes of Loss and Gain," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 1409-1430, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jhappi:v:14:y:2013:i:4:p:1409-1430
    DOI: 10.1007/s10902-012-9379-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10902-012-9379-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10902-012-9379-6?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. Peter Schmuck & Tim Kasser & Richard Ryan, 2000. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals: Their Structure and Relationship to Well-Being in German and U.S. College Students," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 225-241, May.
    2. Elizabeth Cowley, 2008. "The Perils of Hedonic Editing," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(1), pages 71-84, January.
    3. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    4. Burroughs, James E & Rindfleisch, Aric, 2002. "Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(3), pages 348-370, December.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Anomalies: Utility Maximization and Experienced Utility," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 221-234, Winter.
    6. Wright, William F. & Bower, Gordon H., 1992. "Mood effects on subjective probability assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 276-291, July.
    7. Konow, James & Earley, Joseph, 2008. "The Hedonistic Paradox: Is homo economicus happier," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 1-33, February.
    8. Loewenstein, George F & Sicherman, Nachum, 1991. "Do Workers Prefer Increasing Wage Profiles?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 67-84, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Wolfgang Schulz, 1995. "Multiple-discrepancies theory versus resource theory," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 153-169, January.
    11. Hsee, Christopher K & Leclerc, France, 1998. "Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together?," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 175-186, September.
    12. Antonella Delle Fave & Ingrid Brdar & Teresa Freire & Dianne Vella-Brodrick & Marié Wissing, 2011. "The Eudaimonic and Hedonic Components of Happiness: Qualitative and Quantitative Findings," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 100(2), pages 185-207, January.
    13. Alex Michalos, 1985. "Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT)," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 347-413, May.
    14. Sonya Seongyeon Lim, 2006. "Do Investors Integrate Losses and Segregate Gains? Mental Accounting and Investor Trading Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(5), pages 2539-2574, September.
    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. Martín Egozcue & Luis Fuentes García, 2024. "Optimizing hedonic editing for multiple outcomes: an algorithm," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Haijiao Cui & Bin Cao & Aimei Li & Zhaohui Li, 2023. "A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1191-1217, March.

    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. Barrafrem, Kinga & Västfjäll, Daniel & Tinghög, Gustav, 2021. "The arithmetic of outcome editing in financial and social domains," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    2. Haijiao Cui & Bin Cao & Aimei Li & Zhaohui Li, 2023. "A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1191-1217, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Ross Niswanger & Eric Walden, 2022. "Quantity bias in comparison-shopping of multi-item baskets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, February.
    5. 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.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:425-434 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Haipeng (Allan) Chen & Akshay R. Rao, 2002. "Close Encounters of Two Kinds: False Alarms and Dashed Hopes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 178-196, August.
    8. Antonides, Gerrit & Manon de Groot, I. & Fred van Raaij, W., 2011. "Mental budgeting and the management of household finance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 546-555, August.
    9. David Hirshleifer & Siew Hong Teoh, 2009. "The Psychological Attraction Approach to Accounting and Disclosure Policy," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1067-1090, December.
    10. 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.
    11. John J. Seta & Ashleigh Haire & Catherine E. Seta, 2008. "Choices and affective reactions to negative life events: An averaging/summation analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 425-434, June.
    12. Alok Kumar & Sonya Seongyeon Lim, 2008. "How Do Decision Frames Influence the Stock Investment Choices of Individual Investors?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(6), pages 1052-1064, June.
    13. Cowley, Elizabeth & Briley, Donnel A. & Farrell, Colin, 2015. "How do gamblers maintain an illusion of control?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2181-2188.
    14. Jiang, Ping & Wang, Xinyi & Yuan, Bozong & Zhao, Lu, 2024. "Do investors prefer multiple small bad news events or a single big one? Evidence from the Chinese stock market," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(PA).
    15. Martín Egozcue & Sébastien Massoni & Wing-Keung Wong & RiÄ ardas Zitikis, 2012. "Integration-segregation decisions under general value functions: "Create your own bundle — choose 1, 2, or all 3!"," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    16. Min Gong & David Krantz & Elke Weber, 2014. "Why Chinese discount future financial and environmental gains but not losses more than Americans," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 103-124, October.
    17. Duncan Luce, R., 1997. "Associative joint receipts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 51-74, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Senik, Claudia, 2008. "Is man doomed to progress?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 140-152, October.
    20. 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.
    21. Chia-Huei Wu, 2008. "The Role of Perceived Discrepancy in Satisfaction Evaluation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 423-436, September.

    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:spr:jhappi:v:14:y:2013:i:4:p:1409-1430. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.