Literature DB >> 20739673

Comparing gains and losses.

A Peter McGraw1, Jeff T Larsen, Daniel Kahneman, David Schkade.   

Abstract

Loss aversion in choice is commonly assumed to arise from the anticipation that losses have a greater effect on feelings than gains, but evidence for this assumption in research on judged feelings is mixed. We argue that loss aversion is present in judged feelings when people compare gains and losses and assess them on a common scale. But many situations in which people judge and express their feelings lack these features. When judging their feelings about an outcome, people naturally consider a context of similar outcomes for comparison (e.g., they consider losses against other losses). This process permits gains and losses to be normed separately and produces psychological scale units that may not be the same in size or meaning for gains and losses. Our experiments show loss aversion in judged feelings for tasks that encourage gain-loss comparisons, but not tasks that discourage them, particularly those using bipolar scales.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20739673     DOI: 10.1177/0956797610381504

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  22 in total

1.  Illusory inconsistencies in judgment: Stimulus-evoked reference sets and between-subjects designs.

Authors:  Lim M Leong; Craig R M McKenzie; Shlomi Sher; Johannes Müller-Trede
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-04

2.  Ethnic differences in the consistency and accuracy of perceived exertion.

Authors:  S Katherine Sweatt; Jane Roy; Paula Chandler-Laney; Gordon Fisher; David Brock; Gary Hunter
Journal:  Am J Hum Biol       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 1.937

3.  Human Psychophysical Functions, an Update: Methods for Identifying their form; Estimating their Parameters; and Evaluating the Effects of Important Predictors.

Authors:  Diana E Kornbrot
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 2.500

Review 4.  Affect and Decision Making: Insights and Predictions from Computational Models.

Authors:  Ian D Roberts; Cendri A Hutcherson
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  The negativity bias in affective picture processing depends on top-down and bottom-up motivational significance.

Authors:  Joseph Hilgard; Anna Weinberg; Greg Hajcak Proudfit; Bruce D Bartholow
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2014-05-26

Review 6.  Emotional modulation of interval timing and time perception.

Authors:  Jessica I Lake; Kevin S LaBar; Warren H Meck
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 7.  A new perspective on human reward research: how consciously and unconsciously perceived reward information influences performance.

Authors:  Claire M Zedelius; Harm Veling; Ruud Custers; Erik Bijleveld; Kimberly S Chiew; Henk Aarts
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.526

8.  Pharmacological and Expectancy Effects of a Low Amount of Alcohol Drinking on Outcome Valuation and Risk Perception in Males and Females.

Authors:  Tomokazu Tsurugizawa; Shinsuke Tokuda; Tokiko Harada; Taiki Takahashi; Norihiro Sadato
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Perceiving control over aversive and fearful events can alter how we experience those events: an investigation of time perception in spider-fearful individuals.

Authors:  Simona Buetti; Alejandro Lleras
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-09-17

Review 10.  Reward and decision processes in the brains of humans and nonhuman primates.

Authors:  Angela Sirigu; Jean-René Duhamel
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 5.986

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.