IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mse/wpsorb/v04087.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reference-dependent preferences: rationality, mechanism and welfare implications

Author

Abstract

In this paper, we ask three questions about reference-dependent preferences (RDP): to what extent can they be said to be irrational? What is the mechanism that underlies reference dependence? How to design welfare improving policies when preferences are reference-dependent? As to the first question, we characterize three notions of rationality to assess the rationality of RDP and show that there is a sense in which they are rational. As to the second, we show that the effect of a shifting reference point is two-sided: first modifying the relevant criteria for choice and second modifying the desirability of an option. As to the third question we define a welfare ordering based on the comparison of the strength of the status quo bias and show how to relate it to the representation of preferences

Suggested Citation

  • Raphaël Giraud, 2004. "Reference-dependent preferences: rationality, mechanism and welfare implications," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04087, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    • Handle: RePEc:mse:wpsorb:v04087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://mse.univ-paris1.fr/pub/mse/cahiers2004/V04087.zip
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John B. Davis & D. W. Hands & Uskali Mäki (ed.), 1998. "The Handbook of Economic Methodology," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 741.
    2. Dubra, Juan & Maccheroni, Fabio & Ok, Efe A., 2004. "Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 118-133, March.
    3. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    4. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
    5. Duggan, John, 1999. "A General Extension Theorem for Binary Relations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    7. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    8. Donaldson, David & Weymark, John A., 1998. "A Quasiordering Is the Intersection of Orderings," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 382-387, February.
    9. Baucells, Manel & Shapley, Lloyd S., 2008. "Multiperson utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 329-347, March.
    10. Sugden, Robert, 2003. "Reference-dependent subjective expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 172-191, August.
    11. Munro, Alistair & Sugden, Robert, 2003. "On the theory of reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 407-428, April.
    12. Leeat Yariv, 2002. "I'll See It When I Believe It - A Simple Model of Cognitive Consistency," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1352, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    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. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    2. Luc, Dinh The & Soubeyran, Antoine, 2013. "Variable preference relations: Existence of maximal elements," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 251-262.
    3. Juan Sebastián Lleras & Evan Piermont & Richard Svoboda, 2019. "Asymmetric gain–loss reference dependence and attitudes toward uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(3), pages 669-699, October.

    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. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    2. Andrea Isoni, 2011. "The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 409-430, September.
    3. Raphaël Giraud, 2012. "Money matters: an axiomatic theory of the endowment effect," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 50(2), pages 303-339, June.
    4. Roee Teper, 2010. "Probabilistic Dominance and Status Quo Bias," Working Paper 5864, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    5. Özgür Kıbrıs & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2023. "A theory of reference point formation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(1), pages 137-166, January.
    6. Riella, Gil & Teper, Roee, 2014. "Probabilistic dominance and status quo bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 288-304.
    7. Dean, Mark & Kıbrıs, Özgür & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan, 2017. "Limited attention and status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 93-127.
    8. Smith, Alec, 2019. "Lagged beliefs and reference-dependent utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 331-340.
    9. Mark Dean & Ozgur Kibris & Yusufcan Masatlioglu, 2014. "Limited Attention and Status Quo Bias," Working Papers 2014-11, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    10. Qin, Dan, 2024. "Differentiating roles of the reference alternative," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 196-221.
    11. 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.
    12. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont, 2009. "Non‐Deteriorating Choice," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 337-363, April.
    13. Daniele Pennesi, 2013. "Endogenous Status Quo," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 314, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    14. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.
    15. Matthey, Astrid, 2005. "Getting used to risks: Reference dependence and risk inclusion," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2005-036, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    16. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    17. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Uler, Neslihan, 2013. "Understanding the reference effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 403-423.
    18. Ortoleva, Pietro, 2010. "Status quo bias, multiple priors and uncertainty aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 411-424, July.
    19. Guney, Begum & Richter, Michael, 2018. "Costly switching from a status quo," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 55-70.
    20. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Reference-dependent preferences; status quo; rationality; welfare ordering; reference point shifting; implicit criteria; partial orders;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General
    • A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mse:wpsorb:v04087. 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: Lucie Label (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/msep1fr.html .

    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.