Advertisement

Die Prospect Theory und ihre Konsequenzen

Chapter
  • 21k Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die Erwartungsnutzentheorie ist die zentrale Theorie in der Ökonomie zur Bestimmung menschlicher Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit. Soll die Erwartungsnutzentheorie das tatsächliche menschliche Verhalten beschreiben, so sollte man sie in der Realität beobachten können. Genau hier setzen die Forschungsprogramme an, die sich mit menschlichem Verhalten in Entscheidungssituationen beschäftigen: Sie untersuchen – zumeist anhand von Laborexperimenten und Befragungen – wie sich Menschen in bestimmten Entscheidungssituationen verhalten und überprüfen, inwieweit das tatsächlich beobachtete Verhalten mit den verschiedenen Theorien zur Beschreibung menschlichen Verhaltens übereinstimmt. Dieses Forschungsprogramm hat unmittelbare Folgen für die Modellbildung der Ökonomen: Wenn das tatsächlich beobachtete Verhalten beispielsweise darauf schließen lässt, dass die Erwartungsnutzentheorie das menschliche Verhalten nur unzulänglich beschreibt, dann muss man fragen, ob man der ökonomischen Theoriebildung nicht ein anderes Modell menschlichen Verhaltens zugrunde legt, das besser zu den empirischen Beobachtungen passt. Dieses Kapitel stellt die Erwartungsnutzentheorie und die Kritik daran vor und zeigt alternative Modellansätze, vor allem die Prospect Theory, die als zentraler Baustein der Behavioral Economics gilt

Literatur

  1. Andreoni, James; Harbaugh, William T. (2009), Unexpected Utility: Experimental Tests of Five Key Questions about Preferences over Risk, University of Oregon Economics Department Working Paper series, No. 2010–14, December 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Arkes, Hal R.; Blumer, Catherine (1985), The psychology of sunk costs, Organizational Behavior and Human Decicion Processes 35 (1), 1985, pp. 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, David E. (1982), Regret in Decision Making Under Uncertainty, Operations Research, September/October 1982, 30, pp. 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, Michael H. (2004), Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative Prospect Theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol. 95 (2004), pp. 40–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, Michael H. (2011), Testing theories of risky decision making via critical tests, Frontiers in Psychology, Nov. 2011, Vol. 2, Article 315/1, URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216027/; doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00315
  6. Birnbaum, Michael H.; Navarrete, Juan B. (1998), Testing descriptive utility theories: Violations of stochastic dominance and cumulative independence, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 17, pp. 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birnbaum, Michael H.; Stegner, Steven E. (1979), Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge’s point of view, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 48–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonini, Nicolao; Rumiati, Rino (1996), Mental Accounting and acceptance of a price discount, Acta Psychologica 93, pp. 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boxall, Peter; Adamowicz, W. L. (Vic); Moon, Amanda (2009), Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53, pp. 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breuer, Wolfgang; Gürtler, Marc (2006), Kumulative Prospect Theory; Arbeitspapiere der Betrieblichen Finanzwirtschaft; RWTH Aachen, Bfw50V1/06.Google Scholar
  11. Camerer, Collin (1989), An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories, Journal of Risk and Unceratinty, Vol. 2, pp. 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman, Gretchen; Johnson Eric B. (2002), Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value, in: Gilovich, Thomas; Griffin, Dale; Kahneman, Daniel (eds.): Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (2002), pp. 120–138.Google Scholar
  13. Coursey, D., Hovis, J. and Schulze, W. (1987), The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 102, pp. 679–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Druckman, James N. (2001), Using credible Advice to overcome Framing effects, The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Vol. 17, pp. 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Englich, Birte; Soder, Kirsten (2009), Moody experts – How mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 4, pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
  16. Epley, Nicholas; Gilovich, Thomas (2005), When Effortful Thinking Influences Judgmental Anchoring: Differential Effects of Forewarning and Incentives on Self-generated and Externally Provided Anchors, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 18, pp. 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fernandez, Raquel; Rodrik, Dani (1991), Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual- Specific Uncertainty, American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 5 (Dec., 1991), pp. 1146–1155.Google Scholar
  18. Fishburn, Peter C. (1982), Nontransitive Measurable Utility, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 26 (1982), pp. 31–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fishburn, Peter C. (1983), Transitive Measurable Utility, Journal of Economic Theory, 31 (1983), pp. 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forbes, William (2009), Behavioral Finance, John Wiley & Sons; West Sussex.Google Scholar
  21. Furnham, Adrian; Boo, Hua Chu (2011), A literature review of the anchoring effect, The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 40, Issue 1, February 2011, pp. 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilovich, Thomas; Medvec, Victoria Husted (1995), The Experience of Regret: What, When, and Why, Psychological Review, Vol. 102, No. 2, pp. 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonzalez, Cleotilde; Dana, Jason; Koshino, Hideya; Just, Marcel (2005), The framing effect and risky decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 26 (2005), pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (1982), The psychology of preferences, Scientific American, 146, pp. 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (1984), Choices, Values and frames, American Pschologist, 39:4, pp 342–350.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos (1986), Rational Choice and the framing of decisions, Journal of Business, 59:4, pp 5251–5278.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, Daniel; Knetsch, Jack; Thaler, Richard (1991), Anomalies: The Endowment effect, Loss Aversion and Status Quo Bias, in: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.5, No. 1, pp. 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman, Daniel; Knetsch, Jack; Thaler, Richard (2004), Experimental Tests of the endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem, in: Collin Camerer, George Loewenstein, Matthew Rabin (eds.): Advances in Behavioral Economics, Russel Sage Foundation New York (2004), pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
  29. Karmarkar, Uday S. (1978), Subjectively Weighted Utility: A Descriptive Extension of the Expected Utility Model, Oraginzational Behavior and Human Performance 21 (1978), pp. 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kühberger, Anton (1995), The framing of decisions: A new Look at old Problems, Oragnizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 62, No. 2, May, pp. 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kühberger, Anton (1998), The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, (1), pp. 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lambrecht, A.; Skiera, B. (2006), Ursachen eines Flatrate-Bias - Systematisierung und Messung der Einflussfaktoren, Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, Vol. 58, Heft 5. S. 460–489.Google Scholar
  33. Levin, Irvin P.; Gaeth, Gary J. (1988), Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Irwin P. Levin; Schneider, Sandra L.; Gaeth, Gary J. (1998), All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 76, No. 2, November, pp. 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lichtenstein, Sarah; Slovic, Paul (1971), Reversal of Preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linville, Patricia W.; Fischer, Gregory W. (1991), Preferences for separating orcombing events, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loewenstein, George; O’Donoghue, Ted; Rabin, Matthew (2003), Projection bias in predicting future utility, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 2003, pp. 1209–1249.Google Scholar
  38. Loomes, Graham; Sudgen, Robert (1982), Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty, The Economic Journal, Vol. 92, No. 368 (Dec. 1982), pp. 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Machina, Mark J. (1987), Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved, Economic Perspectives, Volume 1, Number 1 (Summer 1987), pp. 121–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Machina, Mark J. (1989), Dyamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXVII (December 1989), pp. 1622–1668.Google Scholar
  41. Marshall, J.D.; Knetsch, J.; Sinden, J.A. (1986), Agents evaluations and the disparity in measures of economic loss, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7, pp. 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKenzie, Craig M. (2004), Framing effects in inference tasks – and why they are normatively defensible, Memroy & Cognition 32/6 (2004), pp. 874–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKenzie, Craig; Nelson Jonathan D. (2003), What a speakers choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selections and framing effects, in: Psychonomic Bulletin & Revies, 10/3 (2003), pp. 596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meyerowitz, Beth E.; Chaiken, Shelly (1987), The effect on message framing on breast-self-examination attitudes, intentions and behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, (1987), pp. 500–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mussweiler, Thomas; Strack, Fritz (2000), The Use of Category and Exemplar Knowledge in the Solution of Anchoring Tasks, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 6, pp. 1038–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Neilson, William; Stowe, Jill, (2002), A Further Examination of Cumulative Prospect Theory Parameterizations, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 24:1, pp. 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Orr, Dan; Guthrie, Chris (2006), Anchoring, Information, Expertise, and Negotiation: New Insights from Meta-Analysis, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Volume 21 Issue 3 (2006), pp. 597–628Google Scholar
  48. Piñon, Adelson; Gambara, Hilda (2005), A meta-analytic review of framming effect: risky, attribute and goal framing, Psicothema 2005, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 325–331.Google Scholar
  49. Plott, Charles R.; Zeiler, Kathryn (2005), The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect,” Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations, American Economic Review, June 2005, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 530–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prelec, Drazen; Loewenstein, George (1998), The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt, in: Marketing Science, Vol. 17, No. 1 (1998), pp. 4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Quiggin, John (1982), A Theory of Anticipated Utility, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3 (1982), pp. 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rabin, Matthew (2000), Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem, Econometrica, Vol. 68, No. 5 (Sept. 2000), pp. 1281–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reyna, Valerie F.; Brainerd, Charles (1991), Fuzzy-trace Theory and Framing Effects in Choice: Gist Extraction, Truncation, and conversion, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 4, pp. 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ritov, Illana; Baron, Jonathan (1992), Status-quo Bias and Omission-Bias, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1992, 5, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Samuelson, William; Zeckhauser, Richard (1988), Status Quo Bias in Decision making, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, pp. 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Savage, Leonard J. (1954), The foundations of Statistics, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Spranca, Marc; Minsk, Elisa; Baron, Jonathan (1991), Omission and commission in judgment and choice, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 27, pp. 76–105.Google Scholar
  58. Starmer, Chris (2000), Developments of Non_Expected Utility-Theory: The Hunt for a descriptive Thoery of Choice under Risk, Journal of Economic Literature Vol. XXXVIII (June 2000), pp. 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stockè, Volker (1998), Framing oder Informationsknappheit? Zur Erklärung der Formulierungseffekte beim Asian-Disease-Problem, in: U. Druwe; V. Kunz (Hrsg.): Anomalien in Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorien, Opladen: Leske & Budrich, S. 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stocké, Volker (2000), Framing und Rationalität: Die Bedeutung der Informationsdarstellung für das Entscheidungsverhalten, Scientia Nova, Oldenbourg 2000.Google Scholar
  61. Strack, Fritz; Mussweiler, Thomas (1997), Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thaler, Richard (1980), Toward a positive Theory of consumer choice, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 1, (1), pp. 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thaler, Richard (1985), Mental accounting and consumer choice, Markenting Science 4 (1985), pp. 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thaler, Richard (1999), Mental accounting matters, Journal of behavioral decicion making, 12, 1999, pp. 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thaler, Richard; Johnson, E.J. (1990), Gambling with the house money and tryin to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice, Management Science 36, pp. 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tversky, Amos; Thaler, Richard (1990), Anomalies: Preference Reversals, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 2. (Spring, 1990), pp. 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Boven, Leaf; Dunning, Davis, Loewenstein, George (2000), Egocentric Empathy Gaps Between Owners and Buyers: Misperceptions of the Endowment Effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Boven, Leaf; Loewenstein, George; Dunning, David (2003), Mispredicting the Endowment Effect: Underestimation of Owners’ Selling Prices by Buyer’s Agents, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, LI (2003), pp. 351–365.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hochschule PforzheimPforzheimDeutschland

Personalised recommendations