Literature DB >> 22390265

A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk.

X T Wang1, Joseph G Johnson.   

Abstract

The tri-reference point (TRP) theory takes into account minimum requirements (MR), the status quo (SQ), and goals (G) in decision making under risk. The 3 reference points demarcate risky outcomes and risk perception into 4 functional regions: success (expected value of x ≥ G), gain (SQ < × < G), loss (MR ≤ x < SQ), and failure (x < MR). The psychological impact of achieving or failing to achieve these reference points is rank ordered as MR > G > SQ. We present TRP assumptions and value functions and a mathematical formalization of the theory. We conducted empirical tests of crucial TRP predictions using both explicit and implicit reference points. We show that decision makers consider both G and MR and give greater weight to MR than G, indicating failure aversion (i.e., the disutility of a failure is greater than the utility of a success in the same task) in addition to loss aversion (i.e., the disutility of a loss is greater than the utility of the same amount of gain). Captured by a double-S shaped value function with 3 inflection points, risk preferences switched between risk seeking and risk aversion when the distribution of a gamble straddled a different reference point. The existence of MR (not G) significantly shifted choice preference toward risk aversion even when the outcome distribution of a gamble was well above the MR. Single reference point based models such as prospect theory cannot consistently account for these findings. The TRP theory provides simple guidelines for evaluating risky choices for individuals and organizational management. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22390265     DOI: 10.1037/a0027415

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  10 in total

1.  Quantifying the psychological value of goal achievement.

Authors:  Timothy Ballard; Simon Farrell; Andrew Neal
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-06

2.  Evolutionary game analysis of opportunistic behavior of Sponge City PPP projects: a perceived value perspective.

Authors:  Hui Zhao; Xin Liu; Yiting Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  The Relationship Between CDC Personnel Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Turnover Intention: A Combined Model of Moderation and Mediation.

Authors:  Ying Shan; Guangwen Liu; Changqiang Zhou; Shixue Li
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 5.435

4.  Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Impulsive and Risky Choice in Rats.

Authors:  Kimberly Kirkpatrick; Andrew T Marshall; Aaron P Smith
Journal:  Comp Cogn Behav Rev       Date:  2015

5.  Accumbens D2: Raters of the Loss Outcome.

Authors:  Andrew T Marshall; Kimberly Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.986

6.  Rawlsian maximin rule operates as a common cognitive anchor in distributive justice and risky decisions.

Authors:  Tatsuya Kameda; Keigo Inukai; Satomi Higuchi; Akitoshi Ogawa; Hackjin Kim; Tetsuya Matsuda; Masamichi Sakagami
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Relative gains, losses, and reference points in probabilistic choice in rats.

Authors:  Andrew T Marshall; Kimberly Kirkpatrick
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The Influence of the Tri-reference Points on Fairness and Satisfaction Perception.

Authors:  Lei Zhao; Junhui Ye; Xuexian Wu; Fengpei Hu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-02-19

9.  Leave or Stay as a Risky Choice: Effects of Salary Reference Points and Anchors on Turnover Intention.

Authors:  Guanxing Xiong; X T Wang; Aimei Li
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-05-18

10.  Deciding for others as a neutral party recruits risk-neutral perspective-taking: Model-based behavioral and fMRI experiments.

Authors:  Akitoshi Ogawa; Atsushi Ueshima; Keigo Inukai; Tatsuya Kameda
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.