Searching for the Reference Point

References

• Abdellaoui M (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Sci. 46(11):1497–1512.Link, Google Scholar
• Abeler J, Falk A, Goette L, Huffman D (2011) Reference points and effort provision. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):470–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allen EJ, Dechow PM, Pope DG, Wu G (2017) Reference-dependent preferences: Evidence from marathon runners. Management Sci. 63(6):1657–1672.Link, Google Scholar
• Barber BM, Odean T (2008) All that glitters: The effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors. Rev. Financial Stud. 21(2):785–818.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis NC (2013) Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. J. Econom. Perspect. 27(1):173–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bardsley N, Cubitt R, Loomes G, Moffatt P, Starmer C, Sugden R (2010) Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Brandes L, Schunk D (2015) Expectations as reference points: Field evidence from professional soccer. Management Sci. 61(11):2646–2661.Link, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Weber M, Welfens F (2011) Reference-point formation and updating. Management Sci. 57(3):506–519.Link, Google Scholar
• Bell DE (1985) Disappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res. 33(1):1–27.Link, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler RH (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quart. J. Econom. 110(1):73–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Previtero A, Thaler RH (2011) Annuitization puzzles. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(4):143–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Schmidt U (2010) Testing transitivity in choice under risk. Theory Decision 69(4):599–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Miyamoto J (2003) A characterization of quality-adjusted life-years under cumulative prospect theory. Math. Oper. Res. 28(1):181–193.Link, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL (2000) A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Sci. 46(11):1485–1496.Link, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Schmidt U (2005) Context- and reference-dependent utility: A generalization of prospect theory. Working paper, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL, Wakker PP (2001) Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Sci. 47(11):1498–1514.Link, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Schmidt U, Zank H (2009) Additive utility in prospect theory. Management Sci. 55(5):863–873.Link, Google Scholar
• Bordalo P, Gennaioli N, Shleifer A (2012) Salience theory of choice under risk. Quart. J. Econom. 127(3):1243–1285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Card D, Dahl GB (2011) Family violence and football: The effect of unexpected emotional cues on violent behavior. Quart. J. Econom. 126(1):103–143.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chetty R, Looney A, Kroft K (2009) Salience and taxation: Theory and evidence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(4):1145–1177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH, Epstein LG, Segal U (1991) Mixture symmetry and quadratic utility. Econometrica 59(1):139–163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH, Epstein LG, Segal U (1994) The projective independence axiom. Econom. Theory 4:189–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cox JC, Sadiraj V, Schmidt U (2015) Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk. Experiment. Econom. 18(2):215–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crawford VP, Meng J (2011) New York City cab drivers’ labor supply revisited: Reference-dependent preferences with rational expectations targets for hours and income. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(5):1912–1932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cubitt R, Starmer C, Sugden R (1998) On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experiment. Econom. 1(2):115–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Delquié P, Cillo A (2006) Disappointment without prior expectation: A unifying perspective on decision under risk. J. Risk Uncertainty 33(3):197–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diecidue E, Van de Ven J (2008) Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. Internat. Econom. Rev. 49(2):683–700.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eil D, Lien JW (2014) Staying ahead and getting even: Risk attitudes of experienced poker players. Games Econom. Behav. 87:50–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Poldrack RA (2014) Prospect theory and the brain. Glimcher P, Fehr E, eds. Handbook of Neuroeconomics, 2nd ed. (Elsevier, New York), 533–567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelfand AE, Smith AF (1990) Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 85(410):398–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Genesove D, Mayer CJ (2001) Loss aversion and seller behavior: Evidence from the housing market. Quart. J. Econom. 116(4):1233–1260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gill D, Prowse V (2012) A structural analysis of disappointment aversion in a real effort competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(1):469–503.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R, Wu G (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psych. 38(1):129–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gul F (1991) A theory of disappointment aversion. Econometrica 59(3):667–686.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardie BG, Johnson EJ, Fader PS (1993) Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Sci. 12(4):378–394.Link, Google Scholar
• Heath C, Larrick RP, Wu G (1999) Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psych. 38(1):79–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heffetz O, List JA (2014) Is the endowment effect an expectations effect? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(5):1396–1422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heidhues P, Kőszegi B (2008) Competition and price variation when consumers are loss averse. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(4):1245–1268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJH (1985) Probability vs. certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent? Management Sci. 31(10):1213–1231.Link, Google Scholar
• Johnson EJ, Goldstein D (2003) Do defaults save lives? Science 302(5649):1338–1339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (2011) Thinking: Fast and Slow (Penguin Books, London).Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1975) Value theory: An analysis of choices under risk. Presentation, ISRACON Conference on Public Economics, June, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Köbberling V, Wakker PP (2005) An index of loss aversion. J. Econom. Theory 122(1):119–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kopalle PK, Winer RS (1996) A dynamic model of reference price and expected quality. Marketing Lett. 7(1):41–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Köszegi B, Rabin M (2006) A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1133–1166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Köszegi B, Rabin M (2007) Reference-dependent risk attitudes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(4):1047–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kothiyal A, Spinu V, Wakker PP (2014) An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty 48(1):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lien JW, Zheng J (2015) Deciding when to quit: Reference-dependence over slot machine outcomes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(5):366–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein G, Prelec D (1992) Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quart. J. Econom. 107(2):573–597.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1986) Disappointment and dynamic consistency in choice under uncertainty. Rev. Econom. Stud. 53(2):271–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) On the possible psychophysical laws. Psych. Rev. 66(2):81–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machina M (1982) ‘Expected utility’ analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50(2):277–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markowitz HM (1952) The utility of wealth. J. Political Econom. 60(2):151–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu Y, Raymond C (2016) A behavioral analysis of stochastic reference dependence. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(9):2760–2782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meng J, Weng X (2018) Can prospect theory explain the disposition effect? A new perspective on reference points. Management Sci. 64(7):3331–3351.Link, Google Scholar
• Murphy RO, ten Brincke RH (2018) Hierarchical maximum likelihood parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory: Improving the reliability of individual risk parameter estimates. Management Sci. 64(1):308–326.Link, Google Scholar
• Nilsson H, Rieskamp J, Wagenmakers E (2011) Hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory. J. Math. Psych. 55(1):84–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Odean T (1998) Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? J. Finance 53(5):1775–1798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pope DG, Schweitzer ME (2011) Is Tiger Woods loss averse? persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(1):129–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497–528.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1981) Risk perception and risk aversion among Australian farmers. Australian J. Agricultural Econom. 25(2):160–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):323–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (2000) Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68(5):1281–1292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (2013) An approach to incorporating psychology into economics. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(3):617–622.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosato A, Tymula A (2016) Loss aversion and competition in Vickrey auctions: Money ain't no good. Working paper, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
• Rouder JN, Lu J (2005) An introduction to Bayesian hierarchical models with an application in the theory of signal detection. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 12(4):573–604.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R (1988) Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertainty 1(1):7–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U (2003) Reference dependence in cumulative prospect theory. J. Math. Psych. 47(2):122–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U, Starmer C, Sugden R (2008) Third-generation prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertainty 36(3):203–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schneider M, Day R (2018) Target-adjusted utility functions and expected-utility paradoxes. Management Sci. 64(1):271–287.Link, Google Scholar
• Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? an experimental investigation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 81(4):971–978.Google Scholar
• Stott HP (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty 32(2):101–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sugden R (2003) Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. J. Econom. Theory 111(2):172–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sydnor J (2010) (Over) insuring modest risks. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 2(4):177–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Terzi A, Koedijk K, Noussair CN, Pownall R (2016) Reference point heterogeneity. Frontiers Psych. 7:1–9.Google Scholar
• Thaler RH, Benartzi S (2004) Save more tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. J. Political Econom. 112(1):S164–S187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Johnson E, Evgeniou T, Delquié P (2013) Dynamic experiments for estimating preferences: An adaptive method of eliciting time and risk parameters. Management Sci. 59(3):613–640.Link, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. 106(4):1039–1061.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Osch SMC, Stiggelbout AM (2008) The construction of standard gamble utilities. Health Econom. 17(1):31–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Osch SMC, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM (2006) Exploring the reference point in prospect theory: Gambles for length of life. Medical Decision Making 26(4):338–346.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Osch SMC, Wakker PP, van den Hout WB, Stiggelbout AM (2004) Correcting biases in standard gamble and time tradeoff utilities. Medical Decision Making 24(5):511–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker PP (2010) Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wenner LM (2015) Expected prices as reference points—theory and experiments. Eur. Econom. Rev. 75:60–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winer RS (1986) A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products. J. Consumer Res. 13(2):250–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox NT (2012) Heterogeneity and stability of probability weights. Plenary lecture, Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory conference, July 1, Atlanta.Google Scholar
• Wu G, Gonzalez R (1996) Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Sci. 42(12):1676–1690.Link, Google Scholar