Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in decision modes

By Daniel W. Schunk, Cornelia Betsch. 2006

116 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0c3c473e9f702bb64d53387d4546b749ce28a227

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement (2007, background): “The utility function is assumed to be concave for gains and convex for losses, and steeper for losses than for gains.”
The influence of mood on the willingness to take financial risks (2008, result): “emotional) influences (Schunk and Betsch 2006 ; Townsend 2006 ; Wang 2006 ), but they differ in their conceptualizations of the role of specific emotional states, and unfortunately the predictions based on different models are contradictory and the results are inconsistent.”
A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory (2008, background): “(2004), Abdellaoui, Vossmann, and Weber (2005), and Schunk and Betsch (2006) found”
Intertemporal Tradeoffs for Gains and Losses: An Experimental Measurement of Discounted Utility (2010, unknown): “Abdellaoui et al. (2005) and Schunk and Betsch (2006), for example, also found a median estimate of 0.91 for decision under uncertainty, whereas for decision under risk this estimate was 0.88 in Tversky and Kahneman (1992) and 0.89 in Abdellaoui (2000).”
Thinking, feeling and deciding: The influence of emotions on the decision making and performance of traders (2011, background): “A laboratory study of financial decision-making under risk found that low levels of emotional experience led to higher levels of performance through greater risk neutrality due to a more constant association between objective gain and subjective value (Schunk & Betsch, 2006).”
A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory (2009, background): “Although respondents in the sample were significantly less risk averse in the gain domain, we could not draw such a strong conclusion for the population, supporting the findings of Abdellaoui et al. (2007b), and Schunk and Betsch (2006).”