Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20

References

• Allais M. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine [The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulates and axioms of the American school]. Econometrica (1953) 21(4):503–546Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quart. J. Econom. (2003) 118(1):73–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bateman I., Dent S., Peters E., Slovic P., Starmer C. The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of simple gambles. J. Behav. Decision Making (2007) 20(4):365–380Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernoulli D. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica (1954) 22(1):23–36Translated by L. SommerCrossref, Google Scholar
• Berns G. W., Capra C. M., Moore S., Noussair C. A shocking experiment: New evidence on probability weighting and common ratio violations. Judgment Decision Making (2007) 2(3):234–242Google Scholar
• Birnbaum M. H. How to show that 9 > 221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psych. Methods (1999) 4(3):243–249Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E. The need for cognition. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1982) 42(1):116–131Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C., Weber M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty (1992) 5(4):325–370Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen J.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (1977) revised ed.(Academic Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Desvousges W. H., Johnson F., Dunford R., Hudson S., Wilson K., Boyle K., Hausman J. Measuring resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment (1993) (North-Holland, Amsterdam, New York) 91–164Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diecidue E., Wakker P. On the intuition of rank-dependent utility. J. Risk Uncertainty (2001) 23(3):281–298Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drèze X., Nunes J. C. Using combined-currency prices to lower consumers' perceived cost. J. Marketing Res. (2004) 41(1):59–72Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edwards W. The theory of decision making. Psych. Bull. (1954) 51(4):380–417Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. (1961) 75:643–669Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox C. R., Tversky A. A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Sci. (1998) 44(7):879–895Link, Google Scholar
• Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econom. Perspectives (2005) 19(4):24–42Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U., List J., Wu G. The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome. Quart. J. Econom. (2006) 121(4):1283–1309Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1996) 67(3):247–257Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K., Rottenstreich Y. Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. J. Experiment. Psych.: General (2004) 133(1):23–30Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K., Rottenstreich Y., Xiao Z. When more is better: On the relationship between magnitude and subjective value. Current Trend Psych. Sci. (2005) 14(5):234–237Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K., Loewenstein G. F., Blount S., Bazerman M. H. Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluation of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psych. Bull. (1999) 125(5):576–590Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica (1979) 47(2):263–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. Amer. Psych. (1984) 39(4):341–350Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A.Choices, Values, and Frames (2000) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Ritov I., Schkade D. Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J. Risk Uncertainty (1999) 19(3):203–235Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keppel G.Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook (1991) 3rd ed.(Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• LeBoeuf R., Shafir E. Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. J. Behav. Decision Making (2003) 16(2):77–92Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S., Slovic P.The Construction of Preference (2006) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein G. F., Weber E. U., Hsee C. K., Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psych. Bull. (2001) 127(2):267–286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D. Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles. J. Econom. Theory (1991) 53(1):75–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon K. R., Larsson S., Allais M., Hagen O. Utility theory: Axioms versus paradoxes. The Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox (1979) (D. Riedel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands) 333–409Crossref, Google Scholar
• March J., Heath C.A Primer on Decision Making (1994) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• McGraw A. P., Kristel O., Tetlock P. E. The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. J. Consumer Res. (2003) 30(2):219–229Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mellers B. A. Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psych. Bull. (2000) 126(6):910–924Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mellers B. A., McGraw A. P. Anticipated emotions as guides to choices. Current Directions Psych. Sci. (2001) 10(6):210–214Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mellers B. A., Ordóñez L., Birnbaum M. H. A change-of-process theory for contextual effects and preference reversals in risky decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1992) 52(3):319–330Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nisbett R. E., Wilson T. D. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psych. Rev. (1977) 84(3):231–259Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nunes J. C., Park C. W. Incommensurate resources: Not just more of the same. J. Marketing Res. (2003) 40(1):26–38Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Bettman J. R., Johnson E. J.The Adaptive Decision Maker (1993) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pennington N., Hastie R. Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learn. Memory, Cognition (1988) 14(3):521–533Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peters E., Västfjäll D., Slovic P., Mertz C. K., Mazzocco K., Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psych. Sci. (2006) 17(5):407–413Crossref, Google Scholar
• Proctor R. W., Reeve T. G.Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective (1990) (North-Holland, Amsterdam) Google Scholar
• Rottenstreich Y., Hsee C. K. Money, kisses, and electric shocks: An affective psychology of risk. Psych. Sci. (2001) 12(3):185–190Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rottenstreich Y., Kivetz R. On decision making without likelihood judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2006) 101(1):74–88Crossref, Google Scholar
• Savage L. J.The Foundation of Statistics (1954) (Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
• Shafir E., Simonson I., Tversky A. Reason-based choice. Cognition (1993) 49(2):11–36Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Griffin D., Tversky A., Hogarth R. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. Insights in Decision Making: Theory and Applications (1990) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) 5–27Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Finuncane M., Peters E., MacGregor D. G., Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahnemann D. The affect heuristic. Intuitive Judgment: Heuristics and Biases (2002) (Cambridge University Press, New York) 397–420Crossref, Google Scholar
• Todorov A., Goren A., Trope Y. Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (2007) 43(3):473–482Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Fox C. R. Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psych. Rev. (1995) 102(2):269–283Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J. Bus. (1986) 59(S4):251–178Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. (1991) 106(4):1039–1061Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty (1992) 5(4):297–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Sattath S., Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. (1988) 95(3):371–384Crossref, Google Scholar
• Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O.Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1947) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) Google Scholar
• Weber E. U. From subjective probabilities to decision weights: The effect of asymmetric loss functions on the evaluation of uncertain outcomes and events. Psych. Bull. (1994) 115(2):228–242Crossref, Google Scholar
• Windschitl P. D., Wells G. L. Measuring psychological uncertainty: Verbal versus numeric methods. J. Experiment. Psych.: Appl. (1996) 2(4):343–364Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu G., Markle A. B. An empirical test of gain-loss separability in prospect theory. Management Sci. (2008) 54(7):1322–1335Link, Google Scholar