Toward an Information-Processing Theory of Loss Aversion

References

• Alempaki D, Canic E, Mullett T, Skylark W, Starmer C, Stewart N, Tufano F (2019) Reexamining how utility and weighting functions get their shapes: A quasi-adversarial collaboration providing a new interpretation. Management Sci. 65(10):4841–4862.Link, Google Scholar
• Amaldoss W, He C (2018) Reference-dependent utility, product variety and price competition. Management Sci. 64(9):4302–4316.Link, Google Scholar
• Bhui R, Gershman SJ (2018) Decision by sampling implements efficient coding of psychoeconomic functions. Psych. Rev. 125(6):985–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C (2000) Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. Kahneman D, Tversky A, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 148–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M, Leahy J (2019) Rational inattention, optimal consideration sets, and stochastic choice. Rev. Econom. Stud. 86(3):1061–1094.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M, Leahy J (2022) Rationally inattentive behavior: Characterizing and generalizing Shannon entropy. J. Political Econom. 130(6):1676–1715.Google Scholar
• Friedman D (1989) The S-shaped function value function as a constrained optimum. Amer. Econom. Rev. 79(5):1243–1248.Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D (2006) Advancing beyond advances in behavioral economics. J. Econom. Literature 4:694–711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gal D, Rucker DD (2018) The loss of loss aversion: Will it loom larger than its gain? J. Consumer Psych. 28(3):497–516.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gentzkow M, Kamenica E (2014) Costly persuasion. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(5):457–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gossner O, Steiner J (2018) On the cost of misperception: General results and behavioral application. J. Econom. Theory 177:816–847.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L (2016) Contextual deliberation and preference construction. Marketing Sci. 62(10):2977–2993.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Guo L (2022) Testing the role of contextual deliberation in the compromise effect. Management Sci. 68(6):4326–4355.Link, Google Scholar
• Higgins ET, Liberman N (2018) The loss of loss aversion: Paying attention to reference point. J. Consumer Res. 28(3):523–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jian S (2009) Self-control and optimal goals: A theoretical analysis. Marketing Sci. 28(6):1027–1045.Link, Google Scholar
• Jain S (2019) Time inconsistency and product design: A strategic analysis of feature creep. Marketing Sci. 38(5):835–851.Link, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Häubl G, Keinan A (2007) Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. J. Experiment. Psych. 33:461–474.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khaw MW, Li Z, Woodford M (2021) Cognitive imprecision and small-stakes risk aversion. Rev. Econom. Stud. 88(4):1979–2013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koszegi B, Rabin M (2006) A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1133–1165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuksov D, Villas-Boas JM (2010) When more alternatives lead to less choice. Marketing Sci. 29(3):507–524.Link, Google Scholar
• Martin JM, Reimann M, Norton MI (2016) Experience theory, or how desserts are like losses. J. Experiment. Psych. General 145(11):1460–1472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matĕjka F, McKay A (2015) Rational inattention to discrete choices: A new foundation for the multinomial logit model. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(1):272–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Netzer N (2009) Evolution of time preferences and attitudes towards risk. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(3):937–955.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Donoghue T, Sprenger C (2018) Reference-dependent preferences. Bernheim BD, Dellavigna S, Laibson D, eds. Handbook of Behavioral Economics: Applications and Foundations (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 1–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orhun AY (2009) Optimal product line design when consumers exhibit choice set-dependent preferences. Marketing Sci. 28(5):868–886.Link, Google Scholar
• Robson AJ (2001) The biological basis of economic behavior. J. Econom. Literature 39(March):11–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schley D, Ferecatu A, Chan H-Y, Gunadi M (2021) How categorization shapes the probability weighting function. Working paper, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Sims CA (1998) Stickiness. Carnegie-Rochester Conf. Series Public Policy 49(1):317–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steiner J, Stewart C (2016) Perceiving prospects properly. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(7):1601–1631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Chater N, Brown GDA (2006) Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psych. 53:1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler RH (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 1:39–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. 106:1039–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Stewart N (2015) How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. J. Experiment. Psych. General 144(1):7–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wardley M, Alberhasky M (2021) Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 90:1–8.Google Scholar
• Woodford M (2008) Inattention as a source of randomized discrete adjustment. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Woodford M (2012) Inattentive valuation and reference-dependent choice. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Yang M (2011) Coordination with rational inattention. Working paper, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
• Zhu Y, Dukes A (2017) Prominent attributes under limited attention. Marketing Sci. 36(5):683–698.Link, Google Scholar