Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nutzen und Präferenz

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Die Psychologie der Entscheidung

  • 28k Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Wenn Menschen sich zwischen Optionen entscheiden, so tun sie dies meistens im Hinblick auf die möglichen Konsequenzen, die mit diesen Optionen verbunden sind. Implizit oder explizit bewerten sie die Konsequenzen, und diese Bewertungen bestimmen die Wahl einer der verfügbaren Optionen. Wenn die Konsequenzen sicher sind, ist die Wahl allein durch die Bewertungen bestimmt. Wenn die Konsequenzen unsicher sind, spielt auch eine Rolle, wie wahrscheinlich es ist, dass sie eintreffen. In diesem und im nächsten Kapitel beschäftigen wir uns mit dem Fall sicherer Konsequenzen, in Kap. 6 behandeln wir dann den Fall unsicherer Konsequenzen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463–496.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., & Carmon, Z. (2000). Gestalt characteristics of experienced profiles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 191–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D., & Zakay, D. (2001). A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 108(2), 187–207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arkes, H., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk costs. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (1997). Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 72–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., & Maxwell, N. P. (1996). Cost of public goods affects willingness to pay for them. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(3), 173–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartoshuk, L. (2014). The measurement of pleasure and pain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613512660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower. New York: The Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Willpower, choice, and self-control. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Hrsg.), Time and decision: economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (S. 201–216). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961–981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1789/1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation [publ. 1789]. New York: Hafner Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berndsen, M., & van der Pligt, J. (2001). Time is on my side: optimism in intertemporal choice. Acta Psychologica, 108(2), 173–186.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernoulli, D. (1738). Speciman theoriae novae de mensura sortis (deutsche Übersetzung von A. Pringsheim 1967). Westmead: Gregg Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernoulli, D. (1954). Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis [Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk] [1738]. Econometrica, 22, 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, T., Haberstroh, S., Molter, B., & Glöckner, A. (2004). Oops, I did it again – relapse errors in routinized decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(1), 62–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björkman, M. (1984). Decision making, risk taking and psychological time: review of empirical findings and psychological theory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1984.tb00999.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, G., & Pfister, H.-R. (1996). Instrumental or emotional evaluations: what determines preferences? Acta Psychologica, 93(1–3), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(96)00017-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, G., & Pfister, H.-R. (2000). Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks. Acta Psychologica, 104(3), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00035-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, G., & Pfister, H.-R. (2005). Consequences, morality, and time in environmental risk evaluation. Journal of Risk Research, 8(6), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870500064143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1909). Kapital und Kapitalzins. Innsbruck: Wagnersche Universitätsbuchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonini, N., & Rumiati, R. (1996). Mental accounting and acceptance of a price discount. Acta Psychologica, 93(1–3), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(96)00018-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J., & Schuster, C. (2010). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (7. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the „planning fallacy“: why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R., & Goldstein, W. M. (1992). Linking together different measures of preference: a dynamic model of matching derived from decision field theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(3), 370–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (1989). The psychophysics of spending. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. J. (1984). Discount functions and the measurement of patients’ values: woman’s decisions during childbirth. Medical Decision Making, 4, 47–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, T., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 212–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. (1975). Mathematische Psychologie. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowley, E. (2008). The perils of hedonic editing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1086/527267

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, J. (2001). The role of cognitive resources in the valuation of near and far future events. Acta Psychologica, 108, 155–171.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edgeworth, F. (1881/1961). Mathematical psychics: an essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences. New York: M. Kelly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (Hrsg.). (1992). Utility theories: measurement and applications. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eid, M., Gollwitzer, M., & Schmitt, M. (2010). Statistik und Forschungsmethoden. Weinheim: Beltz PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenführ, F., Weber, M., & Langer, T. (2010). Rationales Entscheiden (5. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the sirens: Studies in rationality and irrationality. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1999). Alchemies of the mind. Rationality and the emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound. Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Utility from memory and anticipation. In G. Loewenstein, & J. Elster (Hrsg.), Choice over time (S. 213–234). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J., & Roemer, J. E. (1991). Interpersonal comparisons of well-being. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, K. M. M., & Fuster, A. (2014). The endowment effect. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 555–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2003). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Hrsg.), Time and decision: economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (S. 13–86). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S. (1988). Decision theory. An introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S. (1943). Formulierungen über die zwei Prinzipien des psychischen Geschehens (Bd. 8, Gesammelte Werke). London: Imago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gäfgen, G. (1968). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entscheidung. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T. (2006). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: experiencing the future. Science, 317(5843), 1351–1354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144161.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. (1979). Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of energy-using durables. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2001). Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 383–451.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffler, S., & Ariely, D. (1999). Constructing stable preferences: a look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 113–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, O. (1989). Information-processing operators in decision making. In H. Montgomery & O. Svenson (Hrsg.), Process and structure in human decision making (S. 3–21). Oxford, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann, H., & Fleischer, F. (1988). As time goes by: Psychological determinants of time preference. In G. Kirsch, P. Nijkamp, & K. Zimmermann (Hrsg.), Time preferences: an interdisciplinary approach (S. 81–98). Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2000). Experienced utility and objective happiness: a moment-based approach. In D. Kahneman, & A. Tversky (Hrsg.), Choices, values, and frames (S. 673–692). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2000). Evaluation by moments. In D. Kahneman, & A. Tversky (Hrsg.), Choices, values, and frames (S. 693–708). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. S. (1990). Predicting utility. In R. Hogarth (Hrsg.), Insights in decision making (S. 295–310). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. S. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: do people know what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coarse Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerstholt, J., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1997). Decision making in dynamic task environments. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Hrsg.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (S. 205–217). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, K. N., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1995). Preference reversals due to myopic discounting of delayed reward. Psychological Science, 6, 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, K. N., & Marakovic, N. N. (1995). Modeling myobpic decisions: evidence for hyperbolic delay-discounting within subjects and amounts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, G. P., Nijkamp, P., & Zimmermann, K. (Hrsg.). (1988). Time preferences: an interdisciplinary approach. Aldeshot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, 508–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans, T. C. (1960). Stationary ordinal utility and impatience. Econometrica, 28, 287–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: a history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 21. Jan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, W. (1977). Psychologische Entscheidungstheorie. Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near- and distant futuredecisions: a test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 254–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2003). Construal level theory of intertemporal judgment and decision. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Hrsg.), Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (S.–245–276). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2014). Traversing psychological distance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linville, P. W., & Fisher, G. W. (1991). Preferences for separating or combining events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 5–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (1987). Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption. The Economic Journal, 97(September), 666–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (1992). The fall and rise of psychological explanations in the economics of intertemporal choice. In G. Loewenstein, & J. Elster (Hrsg.), Choice over time. (S. 3–34): Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Angner, E. (2003). Predicting and indulging changing preferences. In G. Loewenstein, D. Read, & R. Baumeister (Hrsg.), Time and decision: economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice (S. 351–391). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Elster, J. (1992). Choice over time. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Issacharoff, S. (1994). Source dependence in the valuation of objects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(3), 157–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1993). Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological Review, 100(1), 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. H. (1989). Anomalies: intertemporal choice. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4), 181–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Read, D., & Baumeister, R. F. (Hrsg.). (2003). Time and decision: economic and psychological perspectives on intertemporal choice. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logue, A. W. (1988). Research on self-control: an integrating framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 665–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1987a). Some implications of a more general form of regret theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 41, 270–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1987b). Testing for regret and disappointment in choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 97, 118–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, L. L. (1981). Decision making in the short run. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Humean Learning and Memory, 7, 377–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, L. L. (1995). On modeling risky choice: why reasons matter. In J. P. Caverni, F. H. Barron, & H. Jungermann (Hrsg.), Contributions to decision making (S. 29–50). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. J., & Thoresen, C. E. (1974). Self-control: power to the person. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60(2), 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. (1955). Portfolio selection: efficient diversification of investment. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masin, S. C., Zudini, V., & Antonelli, M. (2009). Early alternative derivations of Fechner’s law. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 45(1), 56–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mellers, B. A. (2000). Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 910–924. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.126.6.910.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W. (2015). Der Marshmallow-Test. München: Siedler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 204–218.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, D. C.: Ressources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, R. (1992). Wittgenstein. Das Handwerk eines Genies. Stuttgart: Klett-Kotta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morewedge, C. K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the endowment effect: an integrative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(6), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2. Aufl.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, S., Sheppard, S., Boomsma, C., & Groves, C. (2014). Perceptions of time in relation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E., Slovic, P., & Gregory, R. (2003). The role of affect in the WTA/WTP disparity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 309–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, H.-R. (1991). Struktur und Funktion von Zielen in diachronischen Entscheidungen. Frankfurt/M.: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, H.-R., & Böhm, G. (1992). The function of concrete emotions in rational decision making. Acta Psychologica, 80(1–3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90047-H.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister, H.-R., & Böhm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of emotions: a framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranyard, R. (1995). Mental accounts in financial decisions making: a cognitive-psychological analysis. Paper presented at the 15th SPUDM Conference, Jerusalem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, D., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2003). Subadditive versus hyperbolic discounting: a comparison of choice and matching. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 140–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain, 66(1), 3–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (1996). Modelling intertemporal choices: an anomaly approach. Acta Psychologica, 93(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsma, P. H. M. P., & Keren, G. (1995). Framing and time-inconsistent preferences. In J.-P. Caverni, M. Bar-Hillel, F. H. Barron, & H. Jungermann (Hrsg.), Contributions to decision making. (S. 351–361). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, I. J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotions: A structural theory. In P. Shaver (Hrsg.), Review of personality and social psychology: emotions, relationships, and health (Bd. 5, S. 11–36). Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, W. T., & Simonson, I. (1991). Evaluations of pairs of experiences: a preference for happy endings. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 273–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (1947). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, & D. Griffin (Hrsg.), Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment (S. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soman, D. (2004). Framing, loss aversion, and mental accounting. In D. J. Koehler, & N. Harvey (Hrsg.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (S. 379–398). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1959). Measurement, psychophysics, and utility. In C. W. Churchman, & P. Ratoosh (Hrsg.), Measurement: Definitions and theories (S. 18–63). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1992). The winner’s curse. Paradoxes and anomalies of economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36, 643–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76(1), 31–48. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in risky and riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varey, C. A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Experiences extended across time: evaluation of moments and episodes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 169–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, F. J. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2.2), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W., Manstead, A. S. R., & van der Pligt, J. (2000). On bad decisions and disconfirmed expectancies: the psychology of regret and disappointment. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 521–541.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Experimentelle Wirtschaftspsychologie, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Deutschland

    Hans Rüdiger Pfister

  2. Inst. für Psychologie und Arbeitswissenschaften, TU Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Helmut Jungermann

  3. Hochschule für Angewandte Psychologie, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Olten, Schweiz

    Katrin Fischer

Authors
  1. Hans Rüdiger Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helmut Jungermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrin Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pfister, H.R., Jungermann, H., Fischer, K. (2017). Nutzen und Präferenz. In: Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53038-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53038-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53037-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53038-2

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation